Liam Byrne: The Government remain committed to the introduction of identity cards. ID cards are essential in combating identity fraud and illegal immigration and in disrupting organised crime and the continued threat of terrorism. We shall start introducing biometric immigration documents for foreign nationals from 2008 and ID cards for British citizens from 2009.

Liam Byrne: Three points are relevant. First, 70 per cent. of the costs of identity cards will be spent anyway on introducing biometric passports. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would want us to scrap biometric passports, because 53 of the 55 major passport-issuing countries propose to introduce those documents. I am sure that, like me, he would not want a British passport to become a second-class document in the world.
	Secondly, we will present costs, as we are required to do, in April. We present an updated cost report every six months, as is required under the Identity CardsAct 2006. Finally, let us consider the alternative. If we cancelled the system that underpins ID cards, we would be cancelling the system that underpins biometric visas, ID cards for foreign nationals and biometric passports. That would render us defenceless in the war against illegal immigration.

Liam Byrne: I draw the hon. Lady's attention to a slightly wider-ranging survey than the survey that she conducted in her constituency. It is called the British social attitudes survey. According to that survey, over the last couple of weeks, 71 per cent. of the British public have said that ID cards are a good idea. I am with them. I am one of those who think that if a person has nothing to hide, they will not be worried about ID cards.

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman would be wise not to pray in aid the LSE report. That report ignored research from the National Physical Laboratory, exaggerated the cost of verifying identity information and had some pretty basic problems with its maths. It overstated the number of people who might have problems giving biometric data by an extraordinary 1,800 per cent., so I am not sure that that is the report to pray in aid in support of the hon. Gentleman's argument. We publish reports every six months. It is absolutely right that we bring such accountability and transparency to the project. We will publish the next report in April.

David Davis: En passant, I notice that not a single Labour Member has stood to support the Minister, despite his comments about the support for his case, so there we are.
	In December, the Home Secretary announced that the ID card system was to be based on the Department for Work and Pensions customer information system database. That is the national insurance number system. There are in existence 76 million supposedly valid national insurance numbers. That is 29 million more than there are eligible British citizens in the United Kingdom, which is more than the population of Romania and four times the population of Bulgaria. How does the Minister think that that flawed database is a suitable foundation for an ID card system, which is, after all, supposed to prevent identity fraud?

Liam Byrne: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman started with a survey of the support that there is forthe scheme— [Interruption.] Well, let us talk about the support on each side of the House. Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, who chairs the Conservative policy review group, said:
	"Identity theft is a significant area of crime and the measures we have of establishing identity are inadequate. We should not be stupid about that."
	We will put in place two systems in order to underpin the national identity register. One is the DWP's CIS index, which is a tried and tested system and operates at very high volumes. The second is the new biometric warehouse. The link between the two will establish one single record in both systems. That is the right approach because it is lower risk and will make it possible to bring the project in in a shorter time. The system will use tried and tested technology. I repeat: to shut down that system will render us defenceless against tackling illegal immigration. We will use the same system to process biometric visas, tougher checks for people abroad and ID cards for foreign nationals in the United Kingdom.

Liam Byrne: Absolutely not. What is clear is that the right hon. Gentleman has not looked at the report that we published before Christmas, which set out exactly how these matters would be addressed. It is tried and tested technology. It uses the same kind of biometric technology that is going into passports, of which there are 2.5 million already in circulation. I come back to the point that, if we were to shut down those systems and cancel the contracts, as he proposes to do, we would render the country defenceless against illegal immigration just at the time when the pressure on our borders is going to grow, if anything.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am sorry to be a dog with a bone, but the Minister has not answered the question that I asked on 5 February during the debate on the UK Borders Bill. Why is it that clauses 1 to 4 and, I think, 21 exempt Scotland? The hard-working immigration officers in Scotland, to whom he has just referred, will not have the power to detain, but that power will be extended to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Will he take this opportunity to explain the logic of that? What special arrangement has he reached with the Scottish Executive? Immigration officers in most of the United Kingdom have to be given in legislation powers to detain and powers on forfeiture, but apparently it is not necessary to apply that to Scotland. I simply do not understand the logic. Will he explain it to me now?

Patrick Cormack: As I am not at present entirely comfortable about the dependability of executives, can the Minister assure the House that we truly do have a uniform policy throughout the United Kingdom and that the Scottish Executive is doing precisely what it should be doing?

Mark Lancaster: Because Milton Keynes is expanding so quickly, police numbers per head of population have actually fallen in recent years. Perhaps that is why crime went up in 2005 by 27 per cent., and by 23 per cent. last year, according to the Government's own figures. Bearing that in mind, is the Secretary of State prepared to look again at funding formulas that seem to discriminate against areas with high population growth?

John Reid: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures from, but in fact, there are now 223,061 police service personnel, of whom 140,000—approximately 14,500 more than when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power—are being devolved to neighbourhood policing, so it is not just a matter of more numbers: there are more police visible on the streets. Moreover, resources have extended considerably over that period. On the British crime survey, to which he referred, again, I do not know where he gets his figures from. There has in fact been a 34 per cent. reduction in violent crime, compared with the 100 per cent. increase that occurred under the previous Government. The most recent figures, from September last year, show that more serious violence is down by 19 per cent., other offences against the person involving injury are down by 7 per cent., and firearms offences have fallen by 14 per cent. None of that is a ground for complacency, but it shows that the provision of police and the reduction in crime is considerably better than anything that we saw under the last Government.

Kevan Jones: Since 1997, Durham has had an increase of more than 300 police officers, but if the police authority precept increaseis capped at 5 per cent. this year, it will mean a loss of 100 officers next year. I am told that when the police authority sets its budget this week it is considering breaching the cap to solve the structural problem with the precept in Durham. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider Durham as a special case when considering the precept increase.

Stewart Jackson: I thank the Minister for that reply. Recent figures from the Youth Justice Board show that more than 50 per cent. of ASBOs are breached, a third of which have been breached on five or more occasions. Is not that proof positive that ASBOs are just another political gimmick from this Government? Is it not time that we tackled the real long-term causes of antisocial behaviour?

Tony McNulty: That is not true and it simply will not do. If we are to tackle antisocial behaviour, we must tackle every aspect of it, including support for those who need it through to enforcement. To isolate breaches of ASBOs, which are just one spot on a continuum of assorted interventions that the Government are making on antisocial behaviour, undermines professionals who are working up and down the country to repair many of the dysfunctional aspects of our communities. That is not on: it does discredit to the hon. Gentleman and isa shame for those who are trying seriously to work with communities in Peterborough, Cambridgeshire and elsewhere.

Bob Blizzard: The whole House will be aware of the huge challenge faced by Suffolk police as a result of the horrible events around Ipswich towards the end of last year. I hope that you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to pay tribute to the tremendous work carried out by Suffolk police in the course of their investigations.
	Notwithstanding those horrible murders, is my hon. Friend aware that between April and December last year, overall crime in Suffolk reduced by a further 3 per cent? Will he confirm that under the new neighbourhood policing arrangements, Suffolk can expect substantial increases in the number of community police officers and police community support officers from April to help us reduce crime even further?

Vernon Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and join him in congratulating Suffolk police and all the police forces that joined the investigation into the horrific murders in Suffolk recently. As he says, crime in Suffolk has fallen by 3 per cent., according to the latest figures. By April 2007, 142 police community support officers will be available to Suffolk police to tackle antisocial behaviour and other criminal activity in the area; those PCSOs come in addition to the 140 more police officers that there have been since 1997. There are more police staff and record numbers of police officers there.

Vernon Coaker: It is obvious that I shall have to read  The Birmingham Post before questions, as well as the other things. Police community support officers make a fantastic contribution to tackling antisocial behaviour in their areas. I say to my hon. Friend that consultation is taking place on what those officers' standard list of powers should be. We expect to publish on that in due course. Alongside that, there will also be flexible powers that chief constables can use, and, should they wish to, give to police community support officers as well.

Patrick Mercer: The Minister will no doubt be aware that the first anti-terrorist unit to be established outside the Metropolitan police was in the Greater Manchester police, but he is probably not aware that it was funded entirely by Manchester ratepayers' money. Will the Minister tell me why that was and can he assure me that other local anti-terrorist units will not have to depend on local money in the battle against national and international terrorism?

Damian Green: In his response to the original question from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), the Minister confirmed the startling reply that he gave me on 29 January, when he said that:
	"Information on the number of asylum seekers who have exhausted all appeals and registered with local authorities...is not collected by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate."—[ Official Report, 29 January 2007; Vol. 456, c. 124W.]
	Is he aware that if he really does not know the basic figure for how many failed asylum seekers are being supported by taxpayers, we cannot trust any of his figures? Will he confirm that the reason why he is taking no steps to find out how many failed asylum seekers are being supported is that he does not want the British people to know that figure?

Liam Byrne: That is a quite extraordinary question. I come back to this point: this Government have delivered reform to the asylum system, and have produced the lowest number of asylum seekers since 1993 and the highest number of deportations on record. It is true that it is difficult to know about those who remain in the country, because exit controls were dismantled by the last Conservative Administration. Every time that we have brought forward asylum reform, the Opposition have decided to oppose it. Will they change their tune and confirm that they are dropping the James review target of axing £900 million from the immigration and nationality directorate budget, and will they give their unequivocal supportto the UK Borders Bill and the powers therein to strengthen deportation still further?

Simon Hughes: Given that there is agreement across all parties that we need to look after victims and that clearly, whereas we have seen increases in damages for severely injured people in the civil courts, that is notthe case with the criminal injuries compensation scheme—we are talking about people with the worst brain injuries and the worst physical injuries—will the Minister be kind and consider at least uprating, to keep pace with inflation and the real cost of living, the damages that we give to people who are the sufferers from crime? Will he also look at the speed withwhich those payments are made, which is often far too slow?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not feel that we are in a pit at all. There is complete disagreement about how we should take the Bill forward. The Bill came about due to a health and safety issue and the corporate manslaughter aspect of it was to apply to incidents such as train crashes. I understand that people are concerned about deaths in custody. However, there are opportunities for the Independent Police Complaints Commission and a variety of bodies and agencies to examine such matters and thus separate the question of deaths in custody. We, as the first Government ever to examine the issue of Crown immunity, will clearly have to examine the impact of the situation on other services, whether regarding the Ministry of Defence or others. I will consult and listen to what is said, but we are very worried that major advancements on corporate manslaughter might be lost.

Jack Straw: No. Listen to what is coming. I should like to make a statement on the procedure for the free votes on the composition of the House of Lords.
	In my statement on 7 February, I set out the Government's proposal for using an alternative vote ballot to establish the House's preferences on composition. I told the House that I believed that that would be the most effective way of the House being able to come to a decision on the issue, and I outlined the difficulties posed in the use of our traditional Division system in eliciting multiple preferences.
	I took the view, and I still do, that the new system had many advantages. [Hon. Members: "Had."] However, it became evident during the exchanges in the House on my 7 February statement and the next day during business questions that my own enthusiasm for the new system is not as widely shared as I had anticipated— [ Laughter. ] Indeed, there was vocal opposition to it from many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	As Leader of the House, I have listened carefully to those views and reflected on them over the recess. I do not want discussions about procedure to overshadow the important substantive debate that we will have on the future of the House of Lords itself. I think we all agree that we must not let process get in the way of a reform to which all parties are committed.
	I therefore wish to tell the House that we shall not proceed with the alternative vote proposal. [Hon. Members: "Hooray!"] Instead, we shall revert for all votes to the traditional Division system. That will mean that a series of resolutions will be put to the House for separate votes at the close of the promised two-day debate on Lords reform. We will consult with the usual channels and with interested Members on the exact form of the resolutions and the order in which they should be put. I hope what I have said is for the convenience of the House.

Jack Straw: Well, I think that I can reciprocate by thanking the right hon. Lady for her generosity. The—[Hon. Members: "He is lost for words!"] I am rarely lost for words. The right hon. Lady mentioned murky constitutional waters. I made the case for the alternative vote, and I thought—and still think—that it had many merits, but it was perfectly obvious that that view was not widely shared. I told the House a week ago on Thursday that I was listening. She asked why I changed my mind so quickly; it became apparent after two days of exchanges in the House that we did not need many more exchanges for it to be perfectly obvious that although we had a perfectly formed aeroplane, it would be denied fuel, and would not fly. I therefore thought that it would be for the convenience of the House if I announced a change at the first possible opportunity.
	The right hon. Lady makes a rather silly point about our lack of consensus. The simple fact of the matter is that all parties in both Houses are split two or three ways on the issue, and there is no point pretending otherwise. What we have tried to do, not least in the all-party discussions, in which she played such a constructive part in private, but which she subsequently sought to rubbish, is find a way through. There will be no exhaustive ballot, and the Divisions will be absolutely straightforward, but of course there could be up to eight Divisions.
	We will put the motions on the Order Paper as early as possible. As I said, we will consult the usual channels and, subject to those consultations, I would like to put the motions on the Order Paper either late this week or early next week, so that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have a chance to digest them. If there seems to be consensus behind one amendment or another, we may be able to turn them into Government motions, and we may be able to drop some others; we will see. The only debate that we are now planning—it will follow absolutely standard procedure—is the two-day debate, which will take place in due course.

David Heath: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have always welcomed the constructive approach that the Leader of the House has taken to the reform of the House of Lords, and that is why I regret today's statement. Will he accept that he was absolutely right in proposing,on 7 February, a way of discerning the clear will ofthe House, and that his change of position is disappointing, as it responds to those who spoke the loudest, rather than to the majority of the House?
	It is easy to understand why progress might be hindered by those in another place, who may be influenced by self-interest, or whose last, flickering radical instincts may be overburdened by the view that the system that appointed persons of their calibre is inevitably a very good system. It is harder to understand why, in this House, where Members of all parties were elected on manifesto commitments to reform, there should be such resistance to common sense, why the Conservatives should simultaneously profess a purpose of ensuring substantial reform and do all in their power to frustrate the means of ensuring it, and why the Jurassic elements on the right hon. Gentleman's own Benches are so determined to obstruct progress.
	In putting forward his alternative proposals, which are notably less flexible and more ponderous, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the suggested sequence does not allow hon. Members a view of the best option to prevent them from voting for the good, thus avoiding the train wreck that he memorably described last time. Lastly, is it not increasingly apparent that what needs reform is not only the House of Lords but antediluvian processes and attitudes in the Commons, too?

George Howarth: May I thank my right hon. Friend? He said that would listen, and he has done so. In particular, may I congratulate him on not listening to the Liberal Democrats?

Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman deployed all the grace and humour which I well remember is necessary when a Minister surrenders and makes a U-turn at the Dispatch Box. As someone who supported the alternative vote system, I accept his decision on the basis that he is trying to achieve the best atmosphere on procedure before we start. However, as he is embarking on a voyage of discovery in which there will be a great deal of cross-party controversy before we conclude will he assure me that he will not retreat at the next round of gunfire? Otherwise, we might as well as not embark on the process at all—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—because we will conclude with an outcome that is satisfactory to some of my colleagues: absolutely no reform at all and another train wreck.

Chris Bryant: I realise that my support last week for his process was not much good to my right hon. Friend—it rarely ever is for poor old Government Ministers. As so many Members of the House have historically supported a wholly or predominantly elected second Chamber, would it not make sense to include on the Order Paper a question about whether they supported 60 per cent. or more elected?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend's support was of the highest possible quality, but he did not necessarily have the battalions with him. On the alternatives, after they have been discussed with the usual channels, we will table the resolutions, all of which it will be possible to vote on, irrespective of the fact that they are incompatible with each other, so that we can have a clear view of the House's position. One does not negate the other, so to speak, under standard procedure. My instinct is to follow broadly the options that were before the House four years ago, because the House is more attached to precedent than I am, and that may be the safest option. However, it is open to my hon. Friend, as to any Member of the House, to table amendments once the motions appear on the Order Paper.

Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House is one of the very few Government Members who would have had the decency and the grace to come to the House in the way that he has today, and I commend him on that.
	In reply to one or two of the supplementary questions put to him, the right hon. Gentleman has talked about the parties being in favour of reform. Would he confirm that the votes are free votes and that, therefore, every Member in this House is as important as any other? Those of us who hold dear both this place and the reforming and amending role of the House of Lords may have views that put us out of line with our party. I hope that he will listen to non-party lines as well as party lines.

David Wilshire: When I received my pager message summoning me here, I assumed it would be in order to rough up the Government. Unfortunately, like the Leader of the House, I am rather lost for words in relation to that task. I simply thank him for giving the House such a wonderful demonstration of the skill needed to do a good U-turn, and I ask him to tell the rest of the Cabinet to come and do the same thing, following his example. I also ask him to accept my thanks—and I suspect, those of everyone else—for giving this House a much needed opportunity to put one over on an over-mighty Government.

David Miliband: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on developments over the last two weeks in respect of the outbreak of avian influenza, or bird flu, in Suffolk. I reported to the House on 5 February the initial scientific findings and the planned response, and I can now set out developments in three areas: containment and eradication of the disease, investigation of its causes, and public information and public health.
	First, containment of the outbreak required the culling and disposal of all turkeys on the site, preventive measures in a wider restricted area of more than 2,000 sq km, and extensive surveillance. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing my gratitude to public servants from the Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, other Departments and agencies, local government, the police and health authorities, as well as farmers and business people, for the efficiency, co-ordination and rigour of that operation.
	Clinical signs of the infection emerge quickly and I am pleased to report that there have been no further outbreaks. Twenty-five wild bird locations, comprising 73 sites in the area, are regularly being patrolled. Tests have been completed on 12 dead wild birds in the area, as well as on live wild bird droppings from the infected premises. All results are negative. Domestic poultry in the protection zone have been located and clinically inspected by vets for signs of disease, as have the poultry premises considered most at risk in the surveillance zone. Tests have been completed on poultry samples from 21 premises in the protection zone. In all cases there has been no evidence of infection. The experts say that a period of two weeks from an outbreak is the time of greatest risk, but it is vital, as I will say at the end, that we do not in any way relax our guard.
	The House will remember that the outbreak took place in one of 22 turkey sheds. Further analysis revealed that, although there had been no visible signs of disease, the virus was present in culled turkeys from three further sheds. Birds from all 22 sheds have been culled and the sheds have undergone preliminary cleansing and disinfection. Restocking can only take place 21 days after completion of secondary cleansing and disinfection, which is yet to take place. The part of the slaughterhouse where the turkeys were culled has been thoroughly cleansed and disinfected. Following assessment by the State Veterinary Service and confirmation by the Meat Hygiene Service that it was ready to slaughter animals intended for human consumption, the slaughterhouse was reinstated and designated on 11 February and reopened on 12 February.
	Following scientific advice, restrictions in respect of shooting in the protection and surveillance zones as well as the national gatherings ban were lifted on16 February. In accordance with the legislation, the earliest we would be able to lift the restriction zones in Suffolk is in the second week in March, provided there are no further outbreaks or suspect cases under investigation in the area.
	Our second area of work has been to find the likely cause of the outbreak. I reported to the House on5 February that the most likely cause involved wild birds, but that all avenues were being explored. That was consistent with the record of all past outbreaks and the scientific advice at the time.
	Further genetic analysis took place during the week of 5 February, and on 8 February the deputy chief vet informed Ministers that the UK case came not just from the same family of bird flu as the Hungarian case, but that the genetic match was effectively identical. On 13 February, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency confirmed that the genetic match was 99.96 per cent. These genetic findings were significant because, if wild birds had transmitted the disease, the virus would have mutated and thereby changed its genetic make-up. It is for that reason that, since 8 February, our working hypothesis has been that the spread of the virus was associated with the import of poultry products from Hungary. It is important to emphasise again that that working hypothesis is not being pursued to the exclusion of other possibilities.
	We are examining all possible routes of transmission, but our investigation of the cause of the incident has focused on transport links between Hungary and the site in Holton, and at biosecurity at the site. Our current understanding is summarised in two reports, involving the Food Standards Agency, the Health Protection Agency and the Meat Hygiene Service, as well as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, published on 16 February. Copies of those reports are available in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office.
	Those reports found that there is no evidence that meat from the restricted areas in Hungary has entered the UK food chain. They also state that the risk to workers at the site was very low indeed. However, they show a number of ways in which infection could have entered the turkey sheds, carried from waste products by birds or rodents, or on footwear or clothing. Those possible pathways for infection make clear the importance of excellent biosecurity practices by all poultry keepers whether large or small. I am assured that waste products on the site are currently being dealt with in a satisfactory way.
	There remain restrictions on trade from restricted areas of the British and Hungarian outbreaks, but outside those zones, intra-Community trade is now normal. It is important that I record my thanks to the Hungarian ambassador to this country and to my Hungarian opposite number for their help and co-operation in the inquiry. Complex cases such as this depend on close international co-operation, and that has been forthcoming. I can also report that, last week, the first of a programme of three-way discussions involving UK and Hungarian vets and the European Commission took place. Tomorrow, I will be in Brussels for the Environment Council and I am seeking a meeting with the commissioner responsible for health and consumer protection.
	The third part of our work has focused on public health and public information. In that, we are much helped by the role of the Food Standards Agency, which has been able to provide independent advice from the outset. That advice has been consistent: properly cooked meat poses no risk to consumer safety.
	Our response to this serious outbreak is far from over. Preventive measures remain in place and our epidemiological investigation continues. We will have decisions to take about any legal or financial consequences of the investigations currently under way. I am also determined that we try to learn any and all lessons following this outbreak. That includes all aspects of the regulatory regime, domestic and international. Consistent with past practice, there is already work being done to learn the lessons of the outbreak, and when it is concluded it will be published for public scrutiny.
	The expert advice available to me is that there is a constant low risk of bird flu to the UK and higher risk during migration seasons. There can be no guarantee against further outbreaks; in fact the only guarantee is that there is a continual risk. That is why it is important that I reiterate my appeal to all poultry keepers to register with the poultry register and to maintain the highest standards of biosecurity. I am grateful to the British Poultry Council and other trade associations and professional bodies for their support in promulgating that message.
	During the last 18 days, I have stuck to two clear requirements: to be guided by scientific evidence and to enforce and follow carefully established rules. Scientific evidence is important because the only basis for public confidence is that Ministers are guided by expert and—where possible—independent advice. The rules for controlling and stamping out disease are important because they represent the best thinking at international level on what is sensible. I believe that my approach has so far delivered the right results in this case, and I will continue with it in the future.

Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for giving advance notice of it, and I thank him and the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare for having kept the Opposition briefed on unfolding events during the recent brief recess. I also join again with the Secretary of State in congratulating those on the ground in Suffolk who have dealt so professionally with the outbreak since it was discovered.
	Does the Secretary of State now regret that he did not take the opportunity provided by his statement of5 February to draw attention to the regular imports of semi-processed poultry meat from Hungary to Holton? Was he aware at that time that such shipments were taking place and, if he was, why did he not take the opportunity of referring to them? If he was not aware of them, did someone at Bernard Matthews simply fail to mention their existence?
	Is the Secretary of State concerned that an impression was given that Ministers have not at all times been in control either of relevant information or of decisions relating to the trade with Hungary? It might have been legal to have continued to permit the trade in turkey products between Holton and Hungary after the discovery of the outbreak, but was it wise, particularly in view of the possible reputational risk to the industry? Is it not the case that the relevant European Union rules do not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit when they can be justified on the grounds of protecting the health of humans, animals or plants? Did he discuss that issue with the European Commission?
	The Food Standards Agency report states that no turkey meat imported from Hungary came from within the restricted zones. That being the case, does it not give rise to some serious concerns about the adequacy of the EU rules? We are now told that the most likely source of the outbreak was Hungary, yet there is no evidence of a contact with the restricted zones in Hungary. Does that not imply either that the disease might be elsewhere or that the restricted zones are in the wrong place? What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the EU and the Hungarian authorities about that? Will he comment on reports that some packaging linked to one of the restricted zones was found at Holton?
	Whatever else might emerge as a result of the continuing inquiries, there was clearly a major failure in biosecurity at the Bernard Matthews plant in Holton. I do not expect the Secretary of State to comment on the possibility of legal proceedings, but will the taxpayer have to foot a bill for compensating Bernard Matthews?
	The chance that infected material has been spread by birds and rodents is worrying. The Secretary of State said that surveillance of the wild bird population has been stepped up, and rightly so, but what are we to make of reports that no testing of live birds has been undertaken in Suffolk? If that is true, is it not evidence of astonishing complacency? How many live birds have been tested within the restricted zone in East Anglia?
	Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the FSA report concerns the possible route of infection. Until now, it has been widely stated that the only route of infection is inhalation. We have all been careful to stress that there is no risk of catching avian flu from eating poultry meat, yet the FSA report's hypothesis implies precisely the opposite. If a bird or rodent either itself ate the infected meat or carried it into the shed where turkeys pecked at it, does that not mean that the disease was transmitted through eating? If it were transmitted through eating, would not the virus have mutated, which we know that it did not? I am sorry if I sound confused about this, but I am, and I am not entirely sure that it is my fault that I am. I urge the Secretary of State to clear up these matters with precision and urgency.
	On sales of poultry meat, what are the Government doing to monitor poultry consumption? On 5 February, the Secretary of State completely dodged—no doubt inadvertently—my question about EU compensation. At what point would he consider that the trade had been sufficiently damaged for him to claim compensation?
	Finally, what is the thinking behind DEFRA's advice that the public need only report findings of 10 or more dead birds? Would not the discovery of nine dead birds—or even fewer—that might be exhibiting some symptoms of bird flu warrant a call to the DEFRA helpline?

David Miliband: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his keenness to engage with Department in the past two weeks and his remaining in contact, which has not in any way affected his ability to ask probing and serious questions.
	On Bernard Matthews's links with Hungary, when I answered questions in this House on 5 February, I reported, correctly, that the outbreak in Hungary had not taken place at a Bernard Matthews plant. It had a plant some 250 km away, in the north-west of the country, and at that stage we did not know aboutthe Bernard Matthews processing operation outside the restricted zone but none the less close to it; that became clear later in the week.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be better to be wise, rather than legal, in our approach, but my view is that it is generally wise to be legal in the operations that take place. He rightly referred to EU legislation that says that, in conditions of danger to human or animal health, it is possible to suspend the rules to which we are party. At no stage did I have any such advice. Obviously, if there had been advice about a risk to human or animal health, we would have taken different decisions, but in this case, the absolutely clear advice was that there was no such risk. The matter certainly was discussed—one obviously asks questions about it—and the answer was forthcoming very clearly.
	On engagement with the EU, I make two points. First, and as I said in my statement, there were meetings and telephone calls last week on a trilateral basis with the EU and the Hungarian authorities. I will seek a meeting tomorrow, but discussions go on in that context. Secondly, he asked how this happened, and that is precisely what we are discussing; no possibilities are being ruled out. He also asked about packaging, and that issue is addressed in the reports that were published on Friday.
	Biosecurity and related compensation is dealt with under the Animal Health Act 1981, which requires that compensation be paid in cases where healthy animals are slaughtered. No compensation has yet been paid in this case and, as I said in my statement, we want to take forward all aspects of our investigation before that question is addressed.
	The hon. Gentleman said that he is worried about complacency in the investigation of wild birds close to the area. I will write to him about the number of tests in the immediate area. He asked specifically about Suffolk, but the figures that I gave referred to 73 sites in 25 or 23 locations. As I confirmed at my lunchtime meeting with the deputy chief vet and others, all the scientific advice is that we have one of the most effective surveillance and testing schemes anywhere in Europe.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the confusion that exists. I readily understand that this is a technical area and, if he is at all confused, my offer of a meeting between him and the deputy chief vet or other officials remains open. I am very happy for him to have that technical briefing.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether we are monitoring the purchase and consumption of poultry meat. Such figures have obviously been published,and we are following, rather than monitoring, them. On compensation, he will know that, like previous Governments, we do not compensate for market impacts. We will, however, follow existing rules and legal advice. Advice on what we would like the public to report has been set out extensively on the DEFRA website and elsewhere, and I urge people to follow it.

David Miliband: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the work of staff and I will ensure that it is conveyed. In respect of stringency, we have extremely stringent rules and we apply them in very stringently. It is important that we have had consistency of message in this case, and that has come from the Food Standards Agency and it has been repeated by Ministers and, to be fair, it has been repeated by Opposition spokespeople and other hon. Members. That consistent message has been about the safety of properly cooked poultry meat.
	The point about keeping in touch with local poultry owners gives me the chance to reiterate the importance of the British poultry register, about which the right hon. Gentleman will know. If people are on the register, it is easy to remain in contact with them. Although 95 per cent. of the flock is covered by the register, that does not mean that 95 per cent. of owners are on it. Anything that any hon. Member can do to encourage registration—which is compulsory for flocks of more than 50 birds—would help us to stay in touch.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about learning lessons. The important point is that this has so far been a unique case in the European Union. There is no previous case in which wild birds have not been the carriers. After any case one has to learn lessons, but after a unique case it is especially important to consider whether the regulations are right.
	No European country has taken retaliation against the United Kingdom in the past two and a half weeks. Although there have been calls that we should do things that are not legal, I remind the House that last year one swan was found dead in Cellardyke and that did not lead to retaliation either. It is enormously in the interests of public safety and confidence, and the poultry industry, that that remains the case. As I said two weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman's continuing desire to point out to his colleagues the importance of the European Union for the future of this country is very welcome.

Christopher Huhne: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in letting us have early sight of the statement and for keeping us informed through the recess.
	May I pick up on something that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) asked? The Secretary of State said clearly that he had been informed later in the week about the extent of the Hungarian trade. We now know that 5 per cent. of all the turkey meat processed at the plant came from Hungary. When exactly did the Secretary of State become aware of that? Was it due to the finding of the wrapper in the Holton plant? It is important to clear that up.
	The evidence of irresponsible biosecurity lapses at Holton, including gulls feeding on uncovered waste meat, is now compelling. The DEFRA summary report states that pest control reports in January made that clear and that
	"similar comments had been made following previous visits of the pest control company in 2006".
	In the light of that finding—in other words, of repeated problems of the same sort that could infect the wild fowl population—how is it possible for the other report, from the FSA, DEFRA and the Health Protection Agency, to assert that
	"verbal advice about deficiencies and non-compliance was given. In each case the deficiency was addressed and no further enforcement action was taken".
	Which is it? Was Bernard Matthews acting on advice or ignoring the problem?
	The Secretary of State says that he is assured that waste products on the site are currently being dealt with in a satisfactory way, but given the evident dangers, and the contradictions in the two reports he has presented, can he assure the House that there is now no risk of contamination of wild fowl? How does he know? When specifically did the Meat Hygiene Service last inspect the premises? How frequently does it attend to make such inspections?
	Given the potential dangers were the virus to mutate into a form contagious between humans, does the Secretary of State agree that human health must be the first and foremost consideration in this case and that there must be no compromise in undertaking every possible measure necessary to guarantee it? If so, why did the FSA not test the imports of poultry meat from Hungary, as it tested the poultry in the shed after the discovery, so that we can rely on more than a mere paper trial to ensure that the meat did not come from the affected area around the H5N1-afflicted goose farm in Hungary?

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend will know that Hungary's prowess in science far exceeds the size of the nation. Will he assure the House that everything possible is being done to share the genetic data that has emerged with our colleagues in Hungary and, indeed, with other countries that are involved in tracking down this very interesting and complex trail?

David Miliband: In respect of organic and free-range status, I am happy to confirm that the rules that I set out two weeks ago remain in force and that those producers should keep that status, which is obviously valued. It certainly should not be described as regular practice to have waste open to the elements or open to wild birds or anything else. There are very clear rules about that, which is one reason why the advice was given and, we were told, followed. It is very important that we learn the lesson from this outbreak that although the chances of transmission may be small, as long as they exist, real efforts must be made to reduce them to as close to zero as possible. That is the responsibility of every poultry owner, large or small.

Bob Spink: My main concern is human health in the event of the virus mutating to threaten a human pandemic. We know that we cannot design a specific vaccine until we can analyse the virus that has mutated, but we also know that we can now put in place the production capacity to ensure that when the vaccine has been designed—it would only take a few weeks—we can go ahead with the massive production of the new specific vaccines that will be needed to protect human health and life. What arethe Government doing to provide such production capacity and make it ready now?

David Miliband: The short answer is no; I do not know whether or not new evidence about the ventilation issue has been sent. That is not one of the routes of transmission that has been suggested. Under the rules of the House, I am not allowed to look at the civil service bench to see whether officials are nodding or shaking their heads about whether or not ventilation is an issue. [Hon. Members: "They are all nodding."] Indeed, they are doing so. However, perhaps I can advertise my ignorance to the hon. Gentleman by saying that that ventilation issue—in other words, airborne transmission—has not been raised as a possibility, but I am happy to send him some details about that.

Shailesh Vara: The Secretary of State made reference to his meetings with the European Union. Although all hon. Members would recognise that it is right and proper that everything necessary be done to deal with the outbreak, will he give an assurance that if the EU proposes extra and additional burdens beyond those that our scientists and poultry farmers recognise as necessary to deal with the outbreak he will not cave in to those demands by the EU and will effectively stand up for the interests of British farmers? I emphasise that we must do whatever is necessary but nothing that the EU wants above that which our scientists recognise as necessary.

Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a narrow point of procedure? At Home Office questions, Question 20 on the Order Paper stated:
	"Which Questions for oral answer by"
	the Home Secretary
	"on today's Order Paper were drafted wholly, or in part, by a member of the ministerial team, special adviser, civil servant, or, on his behalf, by a parliamentary private secretary or Government whip; and if he will make a statement."
	As you may be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before Home Office questions started at 2.30 pm, that question was withdrawn. As you are aware, when a question is withdrawn—rather than not reached—no automatic written answer is given. Question 20 had been withdrawn, so there will be no written answer. My point of procedure is this; given that that question was on the Order Paper for answer today, but was withdrawn, would it be permissible for me to table an identical written question to seek an answer to a question that is of considerable interest to many hon. Members in the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: First, the reason why hon. Members withdraw questions is entirely a matter for them and not for the Chair. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman chooses to put down a question framed in whatever way he chooses, that is entirely a matter for him.

James Purnell: I am satisfied that the orders are compatible with the European convention on human rights. The uprating order will, as usual, increase most national insurance benefits by the retail prices index, which is 3.6 per cent, and increase most income-related benefits by the Rossi index, which as the Housewill know, excludes rent, mortgage interest, council tax and depreciation, and is 3 per cent. The guaranteed minimum pensions increase order sets out the amount by which contracted-out occupational pension schemes must increase members' guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 1988 and 1997.
	Where the annual increase in the retail prices index exceeds 3 per cent., the guaranteed minimum pensions indexation requirement is capped at that level under the primary legislation. This year's order therefore provides for an increase of 3 per cent. This year's uprating adds more than £3.5 billion to Government spending and reinforces our commitment to build an active welfare state and to tackle poverty by helping those most in need. The order provides an extra £2.48 billion to pensioners, of which £300 million is above inflation, and an extra £560 million to disabled people and carers.
	When we came to power, one in four pensioners suffered the indignity of living below the poverty line. The poorest pensioners were expected to live on just £68.80 a week. This year's uprating of the pension credit minimum guarantee means that from April no single pensioner need live on less than £119.05 a week and no couple on less than £181.70 a week. The basic state pension will have seen a real-terms rise of 9 per cent. since 1997.

James Purnell: When the hon. Gentleman gives me answers to my questions, I will stop using them.
	We now spend over £10 billion a year more on pensioners than we would have been doing if we had simply continued the policies that we inherited in 1997. Pensioners' incomes have risen across the board, with the poorest benefiting the most. We have lifted 2 million pensioners out of absolute poverty and 1 million out of relative poverty. On average, pensioner households are about £1,400 a year better off in real terms than they would have been under the 1997 system. The poorest third are about £2,000 a year better off, which represents a significant increase in people's average incomes.
	We have now reached a position in which pensioners are no more likely to be poor than the population as a whole. We have broken the historical correlation between being old and being poor. It is genuinely remarkable that that has been achieved at a time of economic prosperity when the wages of the population in work have been increasing significantly. We now need to maintain that achievement, and through the Pensions Bill, which has completed its Committee stage, we will legislate to ensure that the progress that we have made for today's pensioners is locked in for future generations.
	The Bill provides an enduring pensions settlement and a solid platform on which people can save for their retirement in the form of a basic state pension that will be wider in coverage and more generous than previously because it will be uprated in line with earnings. The link to earnings will result in a pension that, by 2050, will be worth more than twice as much as it would have been without reform.
	We are also tackling inequalities in the current system, especially those faced by women and carers, through the introduction of a modernised contributory principle that recognises and rewards social contributions alongside work. Today, about 30 per cent. of women reaching state pension age receive a full basic state pension. Our reforms will mean that that figure will increase to about 75 per cent. in 2010, and to 90 per cent. by 2025.
	We are tackling the problem of complexity in the current system through a radical simplification of the state pension and by streamlining the private pension regulatory environment, thus making it easier for people to plan and save. Additionally, because it is crucial that we do not burden our children and grandchildren with the cost of a population spending longer and longer in retirement, we will gradually raise the state pension age to 68 by 2046, thus ensuring fairness between the generations and helping to secure the long-term financial stability of the system.
	The Bill will eliminate the existing gender gap in the state pension system. It will lock in the reduction in pensioner poverty. However, we will truly eliminate inequality in retirement only when we tackle inequality in working life. That is why our welfare reform programme and our aspiration for an 80 per cent. employment rate are so important.
	Ten years ago, nearly 6 million adults in this country were dependent on benefits, and with that dependency came poverty. Over a period of 20 years, the proportion of children in low-income households more than doubled. One in five families had no one in work, one in every three children was living in poverty, and in the late 1990s, the UK had one of the highest child poverty rates in the industrialised world. Today, that rate is falling faster in the UK than anywhere else in the EU. Since 1997, 800,000 children have been lifted out of relative poverty and 2 million out of absolute poverty. Tax credits now benefit nearly 6 million families and10 million children. From April, families with children will be, on average, £1,550 a year better off in real terms than in 1997, and those in the poorest fifth will be £3,450 a year better off—a truly remarkable increase.
	That support goes hand in hand with the other measures that are designed to give working families the support they need. In 1997, the standard rate of maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay was only £55 a week; this year, it will be increased to £112.75 a week, as will statutory paternity pay. In 1997, paid maternity leave lasted for 18 weeks; from April, it will increase from six to nine months, and by the end of this Parliament we aim to extend both statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance to a full year. It used to last for 18 weeks; it is now to last for a full year, which will make a genuinely significant difference to working parents. At the same time, we intend to introduce an additional period of paternity leave for employed fathers and we shall offer all parents unprecedented flexibility in dividing maternity and paternity leave between them, allowing both parents to play a greater role in the first year of a child's life.
	Of course, there is more to do if we are to eradicate child poverty. We shall continue to consider what more the Government can do to help those who are most in need, but ultimately it is the opportunity to work that provides the only long-term sustainable anti-poverty strategy. That is why the Government's approach has always been about maximising opportunities to work. It is why we have created a national minimum wage and tax credits, invested in Jobcentre Plus and the new deal, and maintained a strong economy in which everyone shares in the benefits of record economic growth.
	Today, more people than ever before are in work: employment has increased by more than 2.5 million since 1997. It has increased in every region and every country of the UK, with the biggest increases in the neighbourhoods and cities that started in the worst position. We have had real success in extending employment opportunities to those who were previously left behind. For example, since 1997 the employment rate for lone parents has increased from 45 per cent. to 57 per cent., and there have been significant increases in the rates for disabled people, ethnic minorities and older workers. Nearly 1 million fewer people are on benefits, and the number on incapacity benefits is falling, not rising.
	The UK has one of the strongest labour markets in the world and has the highest employment in the G8, ahead of Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Russia and the United States. The contrast with the situation that we inherited is stark: claimant unemployment has decreased by 43 per cent. in the past 10 years, long-term unemployment has decreased by 73 per cent., and youth long-term unemployment has almost been eradicated.
	Pathways to work now covers more than 40 per cent. of the country and we shall roll it out nationwide by April 2008, in time for the new employment and support allowance. Pathways is a success: independent evaluation carried out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that pathways reduces the percentage of new claimants still receiving an incapacity benefit after 10 and a half months by more than eight percentage points and increases the percentage in employment by more than nine percentage points. No other programme in the world has delivered results on that scale for that client group. Our Welfare Reform Bill will build on that success, delivering on our commitment to reform incapacity benefit while ensuring security for those who cannot work. Together with our city strategy, it will offer a new approach to delivering employment services to some of our most disadvantaged communities.

James Purnell: I think that the hon. Gentlemanwas a member of the Standing Committee, which considered that point, and he will know that it is still being considered. Ministers made the position clear: the ESA will be set at a higher level than the current long-term rate for incapacity benefit. As I think he knows, a decision on that subject will be announced in due course.
	Our disability rights legislation, which is the most comprehensive of any European country to date, and our age discrimination legislation are breaking down the cultural and discriminatory barriers facing disabled people and older workers, but we have further to go if we are to meet the challenges of rapid economic, social and demographic change. The Leitch review highlighted the fact that the shape of our work force needs to change rapidly to fit the needs of our future economy. The demand for low-skilled workers is falling rapidly, and it is skills that employers now seek. We want British workers to be equipped for jobs, yet there are currently 4.6 million people without any qualifications. We need to build on programmes such as Train to Gain, which help employers to identify the skills that their businesses need and to contribute to the costs of training, so that they can help many previously unqualified workers.

David Ruffley: We welcome the debate, and recognise its importance for welfare and social justice, and I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government's proposals on uprating social security benefits and the basic state pension. The level of benefits, which is the subject of the order before us, is just part of the national debate about poverty in the UK. It is a debate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has helped to open up in the past 12 months, through a refreshed and renewed commitment to social justice on the part of Conservative Members. Recently, the Department has responded to the policy challenge delivered by the Leader of the Opposition and other Conservative Members with a series of ministerial briefings, and sometimes even with speeches, on the record, on the subject of welfare reform. We await with interest the fruits of the short inquiry led by the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, who is not in the Chamber today, and Mr. David Freud. I understand that that report may be published as early as this week.
	The order will deliver an increase in benefits, and we Opposition Members support that. It provides for most of the increases to take effect in the week commencing 9 April this year. However, the order specifies that, for statutory sick pay, maternity pay, paternity pay, and adoption pay, and for housing benefit, council tax benefit and the earnings limits in respect of child dependency, the increased rates will take effect at an earlier date in April. The increases take effect on different dates because of the difference in the prescribed pay days of the benefits, but we have no difficulty with those procedures.
	I would like to talk about how the rate of the increases is determined. Depending on the benefit, either the retail prices index or the Rossi index is used. Before we decide on the order's merit, it is worth trying to understand which inflation measure is applied to each benefit and why. It is important to air those issues because they open up important questions about whether different groups in our society suffer from different inflationary pressures. The benefits that people will access, as a result of the order being made, will differ depending on the inflation measure that is applied to the benefit. The question that we have to ask when considering the merits of the order is whether the uprating will cover the increased cost of living which any particular group drawing that benefit is subject to.
	The retail prices index is applied to uprate contribution-based jobseeker's allowance, child benefit, incapacity benefit, carer's allowance and disability living allowance. Those are the main benefits. The RPI is calculated by the Office for National Statistics each month by collecting about 110,000 prices of about 650 goods and services in about 150 locations and on the internet. These goods include the obvious ones—bread, cereal, furniture and clothing, as well as water, gas and electricity. With that information, the ONS uses data from the Department's family expenditure survey and other detailed expenditure analyses put together by market research companies and trade reports, and arrives at a representative shopping basket. The changes in prices of the goods in the basket are used to produce a headline figure which is intended to be broadly representative of the cost of living.
	With reference to the RPI, which is the subject of the order, it is worth pointing out that the patterns of pensioner expenditure are not explicitly factored into the representative shopping basket. The ONS explains that that pattern of demand is probably atypical and would distort the average. Pensioner households, which on average derive about three quarters of their income from the state one way or the other, are having some of their benefits uprated by the order according to an inflation index which does not explicitly acknowledge or comprehend how they spend their money. That is worth considering.
	I am not for a moment suggesting to the Minister that previous Governments made the calculations in any other way— [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), is always quick to make a sneering party political point, but I will not be tempted. In a spirit of honest inquiry, I am not suggesting that the matter was fully considered by any Conservative Administration in the past. I simply wondered what the Minister's views were.
	Why do I ask that? Because the question is endlessly put by so many of the hard-working lobby and interest groups that work on behalf of their customers, those who are of pensionable age. The Minister knows as well as I do who I am talking about. They make some very good points, and it would be useful to get an idea of the Minister's thinking about why no Government have so far explicitly recognised the much higher inflation levels that pensioners experience—much higher than the RPI measure which is the subject of the order.
	The other index that is the subject of the order is the Rossi index, which is used to uprate different allowances and benefits, which are listed in the order—jobseeker's allowance, council tax benefit, housing benefit and income support. It is compiled in the same way as the RPI, except that it excludes rent, mortgage interest payments and housing depreciation costs.
	Parenthetically, and to provide context for the two separate inflation measures that are the subject of the order, it is worth reminding ourselves that both those indices are different from the consumer price index, which is the measure now used by the Bank of England to calculate bank rate. The CPI is similar to the RPI in so far as it uses a basket of allegedly everyday goods to compare how prices have changed over the period, but it also excludes council tax, mortgage interest payments and other major housing costs.
	With the RPI in September 2006 standing at 3.6 per cent. and the Rossi at 3 per cent., these represent nine-year September highs, and the order contains one of the biggest upratings since 1997. With the exception of contribution-based jobseeker's allowance, non-income-related benefits, including incapacity benefit, child benefit and disability living allowance, will all be uprated by3.6 per cent., which was the RPI figure in the year to September 2006. To demonstrate the magnitude of the proposals, the long-term rate for incapacity benefit will rise from £78.50 to £81.35. The highest level of care component in the DLA will increase on average from £62.25 to £64.50. We support those increases. Housing benefit, income support and other income-related benefits to which I have referred will be uprated not by RPI but by the Rossi figure of 3 per cent. To give an example from the real world, housing benefit for a single25 year-old, all things being equal, will rise from an average of £57.45 to £59.15. Income support will rise from £57.45 to £59.15. We welcome those modest increases— [ Interruption. ] Yes, we welcome them.
	The September 2006 RPI is used, too, to calculate the annual increase in the basic state pension. The minimum guaranteed pension credit is linked to the higher level of earnings. But the 2004 Budget report specified that the basic state pension would continue to rise each April by 2.5 per cent., or the increase in RPI in the 12 months to the preceding September, whichever is higher. In September 2006, RPI was 3.6 per cent., and thus higher than 2.5 per cent., so it forms the basis for the uprating of the basic state pension, which will rise by just over £3 for a single pensioner, to £87.30. Again, we welcome that increase, but I urge the Minister not only to reflect on the nature of those increases but to comment on them. The representative basket of goods for the RPI and the Rossi methodology contains an incredible array—

David Ruffley: If my hon. Friend had been in the Chamber throughout my speech he would have heard an analysis bordering on the tedious of the number of items that are included and the way in which the Office for National Statistics obtains that information notjust from 150 shop locations but from the internet. However, he can read that at his leisure tomorrow in  Hansard, which he looks at first thing in the morning over his café latte as he attends to his two charming children at the breakfast table. There is a treat in store for him tomorrow.

James Purnell: The only reason why there was a smile playing on my lips is that I was wondering whether, in their policy review, the Conservatives are considering having different inflation rates for different population groups. How far would that process go? Would they have different inflation rates for people in the north or the south? Would they have different inflation rates for people in their 20s or 40s, or for those with more, or less, inflationary tastes? Where are they going to stop?

David Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not wish to be churlish; the Government put the website together and it is something that has not been done before. I hope that they will reflect on what he said and write to me, or to him, to give some indication of how wider access for those with learning and other disabilities can be delivered in the calculation of one's personal inflation rate. As usual, he makes a trenchant point, to which I hope Ministers will respond with the good grace for which they are universally popular.
	Back to the calculator. It presumes to come up with an individualised RPI, but of course an individual punching in the data today would be inputting especially high figures for utilities. According to Ofgem—the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—gas bills have risen by 71 per cent. and electricity bills by 45 per cent. since 2003. Ministers may want to quibble about what Ofgem is saying. I am not too worried about that, but the major thrust of its argument and, indeed, my argument is that those are astronomically high increases in utility bills far exceeding the level of RPI or the Rossi index in this order. According to the Department for Communities and Local Government, the average council tax bill is about one third higher than it was in 2003, while average water and sewerage rates have increased by just over one quarter.
	The average man or woman in the street will have been hit by those increases. Let us assume for a moment that they do not have to access many or, indeed, any of the benefits that are subject to this measure. They could equally say, when they are calculating their own level of inflation, that they have seen tiny RPI increases in things that they buy a lot of. For instance, I think that the average figure for a year in relation to inflation for compact discs would be about 0.8 per cent.—less than 1 per cent. We are talking about a 10 per cent. reduction in real terms in the cost of audio-visual equipment. That is good news. There are examples of deflationary pressures. There are falls in the prices of goods such as clothing. Any of us who potter down our local high street see that there are not inflation increases higher than Rossi or RPI in respect of those goods.
	We understand that, but we also know about the representative basket as regards inflation for all goods. Taken together, those inflationary and deflationary forces have led to an average RPI of 3.6 per cent, but not for pensioners. It is fair to say that if all that pensioners spent their money on was CDs and audio-visual equipment, all would be well, but they do not. A large proportion of their monthly income goes on utility bills and council tax, so for pensioners the reality of inflation is very different from Rossi or RPI, which is the subject of this order. Shona Dobbie of the Alliance Trust summed the situation up when she said:
	"The impact of price increases on basic goods and services falls most heavily on the elderly, who spend a higher proportion of their monthly budget on necessities."
	There is no exact science to this, as Ministers well know and as I well know, but there are some decent estimates of the personal inflation levels faced by pensioners in our community today. Last December, Capital Economics did a short study of how inflation affects different groups in society and it concluded that some pensioners face a personal consumer prices index inflation rate of more than 9 per cent.—9.1 per cent., to be exact. Similarly, using the Department for Work and Pensions family expenditure survey, the Alliance Trust has sliced and diced some numbers and examined pensioner expenditure on 85 different items to construct a CPI inflation rate of more than 4 per cent. for the over-75s.
	There are two points to be made in taking those studies on board. First, both the organisations to which I referred based their workings on a CPI method, rather than RPI. The CPI of course excludes housing costs, council tax and mortgage payments, but in so doing it tends to underestimate the cost of living for pensioners by about 1 per cent., according to the ONS. The second point about those estimates of the level of inflation a pensioner household will experience in the real world is that, although we are uprating the main pensioner benefits in line with RPI, pensioners are facing in some cases a decline in real terms in their weekly income.
	A regular claim made by the Government—we heard it from the Minister a few moments ago—is that they have moved up to 2 million pensioners out of poverty. However, let us not forget the context. Help the Aged has calculated that there are 1.3 million pensioners with incomes just 10 per cent. above the poverty threshold of 60 per cent. of median income.
	I hope that the Minister, while no doubt wanting to claim credit for the work done by the Government in the past nine years, will accept that there is much more to do to tackle pensioner poverty. In that spirit of working harder and doing more in future to fight pensioner poverty, does he agree that moving some pensioners from just below the poverty threshold to just above it is not really what this is about? It may hit a narrow target, but we need to cast our minds towards some depressing statistics about pensioner fuel poverty. Would the Minister like to comment on the fact that the number of people in pensioner households living in fuel poverty—that is, where the household spends more than 10 per cent. of income on fuel to maintain a satisfactory temperature, which is usually defined as 21° C for the main living area and 18° C for other occupied rooms—will have doubled since 2004? Whatever we talk about in terms of improving the outlook for pensioners trying to get out of poverty, those are some fairly damning statistics, which simply are not good enough.

Adam Afriyie: My hon. Friend is making some worthwhile points about retail price inflation, the Rossi measurement and the CPI measurement, and how a particular group, such as the elderly, may not have their household bills reflected by that. Does he share my concern that council tax has risen at such a tremendous rate that, where council tax benefit has not kept up, it is creating a huge trap for some of the least well-off?

David Ruffley: I thank my hon. Friend. His power to anticipate what I am going to say is legendary. He will be happy to know that I am about to turn to council tax benefit, but it may be useful for the record to reconfirm the respect that I had for him in the Standing Committee that considered the Welfare Reform Bill, where he brought together a wealth of excellent real world examples from his constituency of Windsor about the impact that benefit dependency has on his constituents. He was able to throw an interesting sidelight on how Government changes, which are sometimes dry, complicated and boring to many people, affect people at the sharp end, so I am grateful to him, as ever.
	The doubling in fuel poverty among pensioners since 2004 is something that the Minister would, I think, like to comment on. In the interests of balance, he can wheel out the statistics about improvements made, but what about the rather unfortunate record on fuel poverty?
	Tackling pensioner poverty must continue to be a top priority for any Government: the current Government and, I trust, a future Conservative Government, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney—who, as I said, has done a fantastic job in raising awareness about social justice and welfare issues in the 12 months since he took up his position. In 2004-05 there were1.8 million pensioners living in poverty. Let us not forget—this is a critical new point—that there were1.6 million pensioners not claiming the pension credit to which they were entitled. I do not wish to stray out of order in any way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but one cannot have a sensible discussion about the uprating of these benefits, particularly as they relate to pensioners, without understanding that the other part of the equation is the take-up of the benefits that are the subject of the order. It may interest the House to know that in November 2004 the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said:
	"The Government still has a take-up problem on pension credit."
	Although that was over two years ago, nothing has been said or done to suggest that the problem has gone away or otherwise been dealt with.
	The new estimates for benefit take-up were announced in October 2006. The figures do not extend beyond 2004-05, but according to the 2006 Department for Work and Pensions reports "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take-Up in 2003/2004" and "Pension Credit—Estimates of Take-Up in 2004/2005" the percentage of pensioner couples entitled to just the guaranteed pension credit who received it fell from a range of 61 to 75 per cent. in 2003-04 to a range of 55 to 68 per cent. in 2004-05. In 2003-04, 53 per cent. of pensioners entitled to pension credit but not claiming it were below the poverty line as set by the Government. According to the National Audit Office report "Progress in Tackling Pensioner Poverty: Encouraging Take-Up of Entitlements", if pension credit take-up were increased by just under a third—30 per cent.—to a level similar to that for housing benefit, about 320,000 pensioners could be lifted out of poverty according to the Government's own measure of that. Almost a third of a million pensioners would be lifted out of poverty if the take-up of that benefit, which is a subject of this order, were increased.
	The order also refers to council tax benefit, which my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) mentioned. There are pensioners who are eligible for council tax benefit but who will not get it; they will not be able to access the upratings under this order, because they are not claiming the benefit. Will the Minister comment not only on the astonishingly low take-up of council tax benefit for pensioners, but on the fact that the rate of take-up is apparently declining? Using the DWP's tax benefit model tables, since 1997 average council tax has risen by 75 per cent., and over the same period there has been a decrease of about 11 per cent. in the take-up of council tax benefit for pensioners. Currently, only about 56 per cent. of pensioners are claiming this benefit to which they are entitled. In 2003-04, 41 per cent. of pensioners entitled to council tax benefit but not claiming it were below the Government's own poverty line.
	According to the previously mentioned NAO report "Progress in Tackling Pensioner Poverty", if the council tax benefit take-up rate were improved to about 95 per cent., 160,000 pensioners would be lifted out of poverty, according to the Government's own poverty measure. Those are significant statistics; they show that if there were better take-up of the last two benefits mentioned—pension credit and council tax benefit—we would get more pensioners out of poverty more quickly than is currently projected.
	For owner-occupiers, many of whom are pensioners, the council tax benefit take-up is in the range of 36 to 41 per cent. That proportion has fallen, and the poor level of take-up damages the prospects of pensioners on low incomes. Will the Minister tell us what steps he is taking, and will take, to improve take-up? That is not a party political point; I know that he has been working on this, and that outside groups want him to work on it, and the Opposition have a duty to ask about it. We look forward to hearing his comments.
	The story that the statistics tell is ultimately one ofa benefit system that is too complex and too bureaucratic. So that the Minister understands that I am being balanced, I repeat that I do not believe for one second that benefit complexity was invented by Ministers some time after 1997. What I am suggesting is that there has been a problem for a long time, and that during the last 10 years, although well-meaning attempts have been made to reduce benefit complexity and bureaucracy—I do not doubt the bona fides of Ministers in that regard—the problem persists. The answers given to the questions that many Members, particularly myself, have tabled on underpayment and overpayment in relation to a raft of benefits—not only pension credit, income support and jobseeker's allowance, which are the big-ticket benefits—reveal that there is still a very high level of inaccuracy, whether in terms of customer error, customer fraud or official error.
	This is not a "policy wonk" debate; it is important for a much better reason. Support is not getting to those who need it most: those at the bottom end of the income scale. Of course, that is ultimately what this motion is about—delivering more support and help to those who need it.
	The NAO report to which I referred earlier underlines the fact that complexity is part of the problem in delivering support to those who need it. It states:
	"Many pensioners and those that advise them"—
	let us not forget the lobby groups and support groups that advise pensioners—
	"consider the systems and administrative procedures for claiming benefits to be too complex. In all there are 23 potential entitlements for pensioners, with 36 linkages between 16 of them."
	The 17th report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, published in 2004, says that
	"complexity characterises the entire benefits system...the size, complexity and dispersion of the benefits system, and the blurring of the boundaries over what should constitute its proper role has led to a pervading sense of a loss of cohesion".
	Bodies do not get much more independent than the Social Security Advisory Committee. Help the Aged tells us the following in its campaign on benefit complexity:
	"The (benefits for pensioners) system is so muddled and poorly advertised that even Pension Credit, a widely advertised benefit aimed at some of the poorest older people, is only claimed by just over half of those entitled to it."

David Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the publication of the policy commission's report; I am not going to do a Mystic Meg impression and guess what it will say. There will of course be a full, grown-up debate on the idea of a simpler and fairer benefits system, and all parties are welcome to contribute, but I am not going to make any premature judgments about means-testing. Ministers know as well as we do that some element of means-testing will be necessary inany benefits system in a mature western industrialised democracy. It is stupid to suggest that we could abolish means-testing across all benefits as a matter of ideological principle. The tricky question for all parties is where to draw the line. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see how the debate unfolds.
	Lone parents will access many of the benefits that are the subject of this order. I welcome the Department's recent comments on the importance of getting lone parents back to work, but we must be sure to get the language right. This is not about "sticks". The days have gone when politicians wielded a big stick towards customers of the benefit system. We need a lot more "carrot", and my party understands that policy imperative. We have to win hearts and minds when it comes to getting people out of dependency, not to employ tough macho rhetoric. I hope that we do not hear too much of that from Ministers, or anyone else.
	It is important to reform the regime for lone parents—in the sense of providing more opportunities, not of forcing them into work in a punitive way—because child poverty levels are a function, to a greater or lesser extent, of whether a lone parent is in work.In that context, it is worth remembering, when considering the benefits that are the subject of this order, that the Government have another string to their bow. Uprating is sensible and necessary, but it is not a sufficient condition for tackling poverty across all income groups and sectors of society.
	The Minister referred to the Welfare Reform Bill, but we must remember—again in a grown-up and mature way—that it was perhaps not the flagship radical reform promised at the time of the Green Paper. We know that Ministers accept that the Bill did not do enough to support people back into work. Why else would the Secretary of State have commissioned a review in December last year, led by the Ministerfor Employment and Welfare Reform, assisted by Mr. David Freud? That will be of interest to those receiving the benefits that are the subject of this order. They will get their uprating, as we will not vote against the order, but they will want to know what is going on when the Secretary of State has to commission, in very short order, a radical look at what the welfare state does. At least, that is how his briefers represented it to journalists.
	Perhaps the Minister who winds up could share with the House some details about when the Freud review will be published and debated. Someone from the Department briefed the  Financial Times this time last week—there is no reason why they should not do so—that we could expect the review some time this week. In the interests of a decent, grown-up and informed debate, Ministers might wish to inform the rest of the House when we may expect the Freud review, and also assure us that they will ask the Leader of the House for some Government time in which to debate its contents.
	I hope that when we debate next year's uprating order, fewer people will be in dependency and more people who want support will get it. I also hope that the millions of people who say that they would work if they had the proper support will have had the chance that they want to have a better life for themselves and their families and to be less reliant on benefits. We hope, too, that more of our fellow citizens will be able to make arrangements for their pensionable age, so that some of the currently all-too-low pensioner incomes will be higher. We will work with the Government on any proposals they may make, but I serve them notice that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition will make their own proposals to deliver better welfare and a fairer system that lifts more people out of dependency, which is not where so many of our citizens really want to be.

David Laws: I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate. Last year, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) summed up for his party in the debate on benefits uprating, which he characterised as interesting, important and short. Last year, only two Conservative Back Benchers spoke and no Government Back Benchers; it looks as though our proceedings will be similarly short today.
	However, as the Minister for Pensions Reform and the hon. Gentleman indicated in their speeches, the debate is important because it has impacts on the uprating of all benefits—means-tested and non-means-tested—administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. As the Minister noted, the uprating will cost about £3.56 billion. We are allocating a little less than three hours to debate it, a scrutiny rate of more than£1 billion an hour by my calculations. We are talking about the uprating of £125 billion-worth of benefits, which, including the uprating of child and working tax credits, gives a total amount of benefits administered by the DWP and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs of about £150 billion—more than a quarter of the total managed expenditure of £585 billion for 2007-08, and the largest component of Government expenditure.
	As both the Government and the Conservative spokesmen indicated, those benefit increases will have an impact on many of the lowest income people in society. The Minister gave us, understandably, an upbeat perspective on progress against poverty since 1997. Like all Ministers, he is inclined to emphasise the positives, but to put the importance of the uprating statement in context we ought to note that 20 per cent. of the population are still in relative poverty, according to the Government's definition. That amounts to 11.4 million people: 3.4 million children, 6.2 million adults of working age and almost 2 million pensioners, despite the Minister's suggestion that pensioners can get out of poverty by claiming means-tested benefits. Poverty rates are still high: 27 per cent. for children and 17 per cent. for pensioners.
	The Minister's opening comments showed a little complacency about the employment situation and thus, by implication, the number of people dependent on benefits. He said that since 1997 the UK employment rate has improved and that it is one of the highest inthe Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. However, he did not mention the changing composition of employment and the fact that, compared with the Wilson days of the mid-1970s, male employment is about 10 percentage points lower. It is now 79 per cent. compared to 89 per cent. in the mid-1970s. Since then there has been a big decline in male employment that has been made up by an increase in female employment, which feeds directly into the question of who is affected by the benefit uprating statement. The distribution of employment is increasingly unequal, so although there are many households where two people are employed and earning there are many where nobody at all is in employment. That is why we are in the bizarre situation of having not only one of the highest employment rates in Europe, but more children in workless households than any other country in the European Union. That is a strange combination of factors.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds set out in magnificent detail how benefits are uprated; he talked about the Rossi index and the minimum income guarantee going up by earnings. He was right to say that the different benefits about which we are talking will be uprated in different ways—through the retail prices index, the Rossi index or the earnings index. When we look at the paperwork, circulated in December by the Department, that sets out which benefits would be impacted, we find a long list that tells us something of the complexity of today's benefits system. It lists 464 different rates, tapers, premiums and allowances that could be affected by today's announcement, which is titled an upratings announcement. Interestingly, when we look at the benefits and how they will be uprated, we find that of the 464 different benefits, tapers, premiums and allowances, 130 are not uprated at all. In other words, it is an uprating and non-uprating statement.
	Perhaps I am being slightly generous to the Department, as a number of items are missing entirely from the uprating statement, even some that relate to areas administered by the Department—for example, the 25p addition to the pension for those aged 80 and the Christmas bonus of £10. Those rather embarrassing items, which I do not think have been updated since the 1970s, are not mentioned at all.
	Before we start on the uprating bit, it is worth saying something about the non-uprating part of the uprating statement. Rather a lot is not being uprated at all. There are the disregards for many people when they go into employment. We discussed that issue in the Pensions Bill Committee the other day. We pointed out that the disregard for people over the age of 60 who are claiming the pension credit but are in employment has not been uprated for many years. I cannot remember the exact number of years; it would be helpful if the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), told us when he winds up. However, for another year there is to be no uprating of the disregards for people in those circumstances. That means that many people—pensioners and others—have powerful disincentives to work. We also discovered that the disregards for housing benefit in respect of child care are not being uprated. In other words, more people on housing benefit will find themselves squeezed by the fact that child care costs are going up but no allowance is made for that.
	There are no upratings of the capital disregards that affect a number of the benefits. That means that more and more people with modest savings will find that their benefits will be disallowed. There is also no uprating of the winter fuel payment. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds spoke in detail about how different elements of the retail prices index are going up very rapidly while other components are falling. I am not sure whether I would follow him all the way down the path that he set out for the social justice commission: that of having a series of different uprating factors for different benefits.

David Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman should not infer from my speculative questioning that I am trying to lead the social justice policy group one way or the other. It is an independent body. For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that I was not advocating different measures; I was merely asking whether the Ministers had thought about using different measures for different benefits.

David Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I fear that he may be accused of toying with and teasing us; he was tempting us to believe that under the Conservatives everyone might get uprated by a higher factor. I think that he is saying now that such a panacea would not be as evident under a Conservative Government as we might have hoped.
	I am sure that the Under-Secretary will mention in his summing-up that some indices that are now actually higher than the rate of inflation—the pensions and prices index, for example—have, in the past, been lower for quite long periods. However, it is worth noting that the winter fuel payment has not been uprated this year. The Minister will confirm that there has been no uprating of the winter fuel payment since 2000-01—a very long time. Perhaps that is why the Departmentof Trade and Industry indicated in a written parliamentary answer a couple of months ago that it expects the recorded number of people in fuel poverty not to disappear to zero, which is the Government's target, but to double from 1 million to 2 million between 2004 and 2006.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds mentioned in an intervention how much fuel costs have gone up over the last year alone. I think that he mentioned—if he did not, I will—that the September 2006 retail prices index for heating and lighting rose by 29.2 per cent. We would certainly not suggest that every single benefit should be uprated by some different factor, but there is a powerful logic behind the idea that the winter heating allowance, which is designed to compensate for heating costs, should in some way be related to thosecosts rather than be allowed to shrivel over time. The RPI shows that since 2000-01 the cost of fuel has gone up, on the Government's own measure, by 67.8 per cent.—double even the increase over last year—which is considerably greater than the RPI increases.
	I know that the Government will argue today against uprating for actual fuel costs and say that it would be quite inappropriate to use other elements of inflation in examining the way in which benefits are uprated. During a quiet morning, however, I looked through a long piece of paperwork—the uprating statement—sent by the Minister back on 11 December 2006. I examined in particular the increases and non-increases of benefit and counted up the number of benefits that were not increasing at all. I suddenly reached the section on housing benefit, which dealt with non-dependent deductions, rent rebates and allowances. One category listed is entitled "service charges for fuel". The most interesting fact to note is that those service charges are going up enormously—by 29.2 per cent.—in this particular year of 2007-08. Not being as familiar or literate about these matters as my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), I thought that that extraordinary aspect of Government generosity might be used as a precedent for arguing that the winter fuel payment should go up by a higher rate. Then, however, I discovered that the service charges for fuel are actually the allowance for fuel costs that is made where housing benefit is paid to people who pay a rent that includes the cost of fuel. In other words, the Government are saying that for people who pay rent and do not pay a dedicated fuel cost—they are not supposed to receive housing benefit in order to pay for those costs—it can be assumed that the cost of fuel has gone up by 29.2 per cent. That allows the Government to avoid paying an excessive amount of housing benefit to those particular individuals.
	That is pretty cheeky of the Government. On the one hand, there is a winter heating allowance, which is disappearing in relation to the cost of winter heating, while on the other the Government are actually using the 29.2 per cent. increase in costs to ensure that housing benefit is clawed back from people on low incomes. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that and let us know whether it sets a good precedent that would allow the Government to look more generously in future at the uprating of the winter heating allowance.
	From the other interesting document on the national insurance fund and how it is accruing, we discover that because the Government are uprating many of the benefits only at the rate of inflation and many allowances by nothing at all—more than a third of the allowances and premiums are not being uprated at all—the surplus on the fund will increase from£4.8 billion of revenue versus expenditure in 2007-08 to £10.042 billion in 2011-12. The total cumulative balance in the fund will increase from £43 billion in 2007-08 to £74 billion in 2011-12. The pensioner lobby, which frequently approaches the Minister about this particular issue, may well suggest that he can afford to offer a more generous pension because he has a huge amount in the national insurance fund. We can all imagine what they will say.
	I would like to touch on a few specific benefit issues that arise from the uprating statement. It is worth saying from the outset that this provides one of the rare opportunities to look into how the whole benefits system is mapped out for us—taking account of the 464 different rates, premiums and allowances that I mentioned earlier—and it should provide an opportunity for the Government to consider how complex the benefits system has become since Beveridge and others designed it 50, 60 or even 70 years ago.
	We know that the Government have a simplification team that is supposed to be looking into all these matters, but when the issue was raised in Work and Pensions questions recently, it sounded as if the work being done was not particularly radical. As each new Secretary of State comes in and goes through the red boxes on the first day, he quickly makes a speech saying how complex the benefits system is and what a hideous nightmare it has become. He says that it must all be cut back, but then the new Secretary of State disappears somewhere after about a year. It was slightly earlier than that at one point— [Interruption.] Probably June this year, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds says. The benefits system is then left in that very complex state.
	As a consequence of the uprating statement, I hope that we will increasingly focus on how messy and complex the system has become. There are all sorts of historic anomalies, such as the 25p additional payment, which now succeeds only in irritating pensioners at the age of 80 and the Christmas bonus, which was supposed to be equivalent to a double pension when first introduced, but would now buy only a small proportion of a turkey.
	We will talk about particular benefits and pensions in more detail later, but we should note that we have a benefits and pensions system that is phenomenally more reliant on means-testing than Mr. Beveridge could ever have thought up. What are the implications of the uprating of pensions today? There is a basic state pension of £87.30 and a means-tested minimum guarantee—or whatever it is now called—of £119.05. That means a gap of almost £32 between the level of the pension when people have accrued all their contributions for 44 years or 39 years—it is now going to be 30 years—and the level that people get if they accrue nothing at all and end up on means-tested benefits. If Mr. Beveridge had been asked to comment on such a system, he would have regarded it as absolutely crackpot to set the full level of the basic state pension £32 below the minimum means-tested level.
	I think that Beveridge would have been worried about many of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds—for example, the problem of take-up of pension credit or council tax benefit. We discover that little more than half of all pensioners are actually taking up their entitlement to council tax benefit despite the extraordinary increases in council tax since 1996-97. I believe that Beveridge, in reflecting on today's uprating statement and the implications of the uprating of different benefits, would have been very worried by the reliance—or over-reliance—on means-testing. He would have wanted an uprating provision that reduced the number of people on means-testing in the future in relation to pensions, so that there was an incentive to save, and in relation to all the other means-tested benefits that the Minister discussed earlier—including tax credits. Although those credits are not specifically the subject of this uprating statement, there has been a big increase in the number of people impacted by the means-testing of tax credits. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that has undermined work incentives since Labour came to power in 1997.
	I will not rehearse to too great an extent some of the debates that we have had at modest length in Committee when considering the Pensions Bill over the past few weeks. However, it is worth picking up the continuing dissatisfaction among Liberal Democrat Members about the delay and confusion in restoring the earnings link for pensions—something to which we will no doubt return—and about the fact that the number of people on means-tested benefits will increase as a consequence.
	We are also concerned about the fact that the future uprating of the basic state pension, which is supposed to be done on the basis of earnings, will be done on the basis of an earnings index that the Government are determined not to include in the Pensions Bill, so that this Government or a future Government could pick and choose the earnings index that they want to use from time to time. That is a matter of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House, as is the fact that the Government have removed the safety net that existed in the 1970s, when the basic state pension had to be uprated according to the higher of either earnings or prices. We now discover that it will be uprated only according to earnings, even if the increase in prices is higher than that in earnings during the year.

David Laws: On uprating, the Minister is confirming precisely that the guarantee that was in place under the predecessor Labour Government in the 1970s is not the guarantee that he will now put in place. The higher of either inflation or earnings will not be used. Indeed, there is even a removal of minimum guarantee, which has been implemented over the past couple of years, that the increase would not be less than 2.5 per cent. That certainly concerns us.

James Plaskitt: We have had a short but detailed and interesting debate, comprising only Front-Bench spokespeople. I will endeavour to reply to the points that the hon. Members for BurySt. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) made, some of which overlap. I am pleased that the order has already commanded the full support of the House. They made comprehensive and thoughtful speeches, and most of their points were perfectly legitimate and proper.
	On the different measures of inflation, the hon. Gentlemen rightly referred to the recent steep increases in utility bills and energy prices. Of course, there have been considerable energy price spikes before in past40 years or so and, in all those previous cases, there was no winter fuel payment, which offers a measure of relief from such spikes. It is still fair to say that, despite the recent sharp increase in gas and electricity prices, the winter fuel payment will still cover the winter fuel bill of most pensioner households.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is right to point out that there are different rates of inflation for the various goods that make up the basket that constitutes the purchases that pensioner households make. He fairly pointed out that there has been little inflation in clothing prices, which constitute a considerable element of pensioner purchases. The dominant item for most pensioner households is food, for which inflation rates have been very flat if not negative. That goes some way to offset the steep increases in utility bills that pensioners, like everyone else, have experienced.
	On average, over the past 18 years, pensioners have faced lower inflation than those who are of working age and pensioner average income has grown faster than earnings over the past 10 years. To help to meet the costs of fuel, particularly in the winter when it is the most sensitive issue, we introduced the winter fuel allowance, which began at £20. It has now increased to £200—a tenfold increase—and £300 where the pensioner household contains a pensioner over the age of 80. Over the whole time frame, the increase in the winter fuel payment has well exceeded the rate of inflation. That needs to be borne in mind when looking at the current situation.
	Following the fall in wholesale prices, energy retail suppliers are beginning to forecast lower prices. They have already announced some reductions, with some more to come. Both hon. Gentlemen would acknowledge that there is a certain volatility in utility prices. We need to see that the inflation measure that we use reflects the entire basket of goods that pensioner households purchase and is not overly dependent on one element that is notoriously more volatile than any of the other major components.

James Plaskitt: I am suggesting that the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the overall period that I was referring to, which has seen the winter fuel payment that started at £20 reach £200. That tenfold increase clearly indicates our intention to assist pensioner households in overcoming fuel poverty. That is the reason why, for those aged over 80, who are more vulnerable, the amount has increased to £300. As I said, notwithstanding the recent increases in retail prices, those winter payments will still meet the winter fuel bill of a typical pensioner household. That is the most important consideration for us to bear in mind.
	Issues were also raised about council tax, which can be a burden on pensioner households and constitute a considerable element of the expenditure that pensioners face. Both hon. Gentlemen were right to emphasise the importance of council tax benefit and of seeing that that benefit is fully taken up. They reasonably asked what action the Government were taking to try to increase take-up of council tax benefit. The Pension Service is engaged in an outreach exercise that involves telephoning pensioners who we think are entitled to the benefit to try to ensure that it is taken up. Thousands of calls a week are being made. We have also tried to simplify the paperwork. There is now a vastly reduced single form that, if necessary, does not even have to be completed by the pensioner household; it can be completed over the phone. All that is required is a signature at the end of the day to authorise collection. That is a considerable advance on the previous forms, which I accept were too long and complicated. That simplification in the application process has helped to improve take-up of that important benefit.

James Plaskitt: Yes. I am pretty sure that we publish those figures on an annual basis. If the hon. Gentleman cares to check, he will see the point at which they are generally published. I was just about to move on to pension credit take-up, which he legitimately raised. At present, 3.3 million individual pensioners benefit from pension credit. The average award is about £43 a week, which emphasises the importance of taking pension credit up. It is encouraging to see that, in the case of the guarantee credit, which is the aspect of the credit that is directed at the most vulnerable and lowest income pensioner households, the take-up rate is as high as 81 per cent. That is a significant improvement on the minimum income guarantee, which preceded it.
	Again, we are trying to do all that we can to encourage and extend take-up. Local pension services are running a benefit entitlement check programme. There were more than 2 million mailings as part of that programme last year. As a result of increasing the awareness of the benefit, we are now handling about 4,000 calls a week on the telephone-based application line. Increasingly, we can develop means of using data sharing, based on other information that we have in the Department, to help us to identify customers who we have reason to believe have an entitlement to pension credit, but who may not have taken it up. Using the data-sharing techniques, we can identify who those people are and contact them. That should enable a further increase in take-up over time.
	Both hon. Gentlemen—again, perfectly reasonably—raised benefit complexity. We all accept that the welfare state has become very complex. Governments of all persuasions have made individual reforms to the welfare system, each perfectly reasonably intentioned, but with the effect of adding yet more changes on to the base and making the thing more complex. It therefore behoves us to try to do what we can to achieve greater simplicity in the system and to iron out some of the complexities that undoubtedly cause problems for the operation of the system and for the customers who receive the benefits.
	The work of the simplification unit, which was referred to in the debate, has helped us to establish the principles on which we can proceed. For example, we now ask searching questions about any intended reform or revision that we might be thinking of making to the benefit system. The test that it has to pass is whether it will help us to achieve greater simplicity, rather than adding to complexity. The issue is partly about trying to prevent greater complexity coming into the system, as well as looking at a whole range of aspects of the existing system to see whether there are historic complexities that we can iron out by harmonising arrangements. We have done quite a lot of that. Partly as a result of the work that the simplification unit has done, we have already seen about 300 statutory instruments scrapped as a contribution towards achieving greater simplification across the benefit system. However, it is a huge task, as I think that the hon. Member for Yeovil would acknowledge, and no doubt the work will be ongoing for a long time.

James Plaskitt: I have no doubt whatsoever that the report will stimulate much debate, as the hon. Gentleman says. We said that we expected it to be published early in the new year, which is round about where we are now, so hopefully he should not have to wait too much longer.
	Both hon. Gentlemen made points about lone parents. It is right that we need to make more progress on assisting lone parents into work because that helps us to secure further reductions in poverty. The employment rate for lone parents has increased by11 per cent. since 1997 and the number of lone parents who are benefit claimants has declined by 230,000.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was right to point out that there needs to be a carrot in this. The issue is broader than levels of benefit, because it embraces the structure of the tax system and a requirement for a substantial extension in the number of child care places. He is right that we need to consider the matter comprehensively, which is why our measures respond in all respects, including the extension of child care places, which have greatly assisted many lone parents to choose to move off benefits and go back into work.
	The orders provide more than £3.5 billion of additional support: £2.48 billion to pensioners, of which£300 million is above inflation; £16 million to children, of which £7 million is above inflation; £560 million to disabled people and carers; and £520 million to people of working age. The uprating order contributes to our overall programme of reform to the welfare system, which involves linking rights with responsibilities during working lives and providing the opportunity for all to build a decent income in retirement.
	We announced last year that we would continue our commitment to uprate the pension credit minimum guarantee by earnings rather than prices, so this year's uprating order will take us another step away from the extent of pensioner poverty that we inherited in 1997. Through measures including pension credit, the state second pension and above-inflation increases in the basic state pension, we have lifted 1 million pensioners out of relative poverty and established a more equitable system. The uprating order continues that progress. It will lock in the progress we have made on eliminating pensioner poverty and ensure that the poorest pensioners share in the rising prosperity of our nation.
	As we look to the long term, we face the challenge of profound social and demographic change. In the next 50 years, the number of people over pension age will increase by more than half. If the system were left unchanged, there would be only two people in work for every one in retirement, as opposed to four at present. The measures that we are taking forward in the Pensions Bill will set in place a historic settlement that will meet these long term challenges.
	Let me turn to the aspects of the orders that deal with working-age benefits. Since 1997, we have taken forward a series of reforms to enable people to escape poverty and fulfil their potential by coming off benefit and moving into work. As a result, there are now over 2.5 million more people in work and about 900,000 fewer on out-of-work benefits. Since 1997, we have lifted 1.8 million children out of absolute poverty and almost 700,000 out of relative poverty. We have a historic target of halving child poverty by 2010, and if we are going to achieve that, we will need to renew our efforts.
	We want to ensure that children have the best start not just because that is morally right, but because we recognise that that individuals' outcomes are often determined by their experiences in earlier life. From April, the poorest children will thus receive £64 a week through child benefit and child tax credit—in 1997, they received only £28. We will again uprate maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay by earnings and we will significantly extend the length of coverage over the course of this Parliament. Furthermore, because we know that the last months of pregnancy and the first months following a birth are associated with additional costs, mothers will be eligible for child benefit from the 29th week of their pregnancy from 2009. That will mean up to an extra £200 for the first child and an extra £130 for subsequent children.
	Ultimately, work is the surest way for families to escape poverty and give their children the best start. It is the only way to meet the challenges of an ageing and increasingly globalised society. That was why we began the new deal, which has helped hundreds of thousands of people to get off benefits and back into work. It was why we invested heavily in creating Jobcentre Plus, which has provided an integrated service for people who need support and help in finding employment. It was also why we introduced the national minimum wage and tax credits, which gave people the unambiguous message that they would be better off in work than on benefits. With the orders, we are keen to build on that success by enabling and empowering people to fulfil their potential and ambitions, rather than consigning them to a lifetime on benefits. Our Welfare Reform Bill sets out aspirations for an 80 per cent. employment rate. That would mean a million fewer people claiming incapacity benefit, a million more older people in work and an extra 300,000 lone parents off benefit.
	The uprating order further delivers on our promises to help those who need it most, to support families and to tackle the poverty suffered by pensioners and children wherever it occurs. However, we see the right to work as fundamental to tackling poverty and building aspiration, so we are supporting more people to find work, including people on incapacity benefit, lone parents and older people who want to return to, or remain in, the work force. The orders will assist that, so I commend them to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.

Resolved,
	That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions IncreaseOrder 2007, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.— [James Purnell.]

Vera Baird: Thanks for that parallel history lesson.
	The convention provided substantive protection for individuals against the violation of their rights by states. It ensured that the principles of democracy were strengthened by giving citizens a forum in which they could be heard if a Government—even a democratically-elected Government—sought to deny basic fundamental rights. That was a key step forward in enhancing democratic answerability. The European convention also declared those rights strongly, thus elevating the position of rights in society. It still does all those things.
	The convention was never intended to be a precise legislative document. The drafters recognised that rights could come into conflict with each another, so a solution was prescribed: flexibility. The ideal realisation of that flexibility was to let sovereign Governments determine the balance of rights in the context of their national circumstances and then let national courts determine whether that balance was correct in those circumstances. That flexibility allows what we in the UK would call local common sense to be engaged. Of course, British citizens had been going to the Strasbourg Court to enforce those rights against the UK Government, and that Court had done its best to understand the British context, but we did not have a national forum and the opportunity to maximise that local flexibility until the Human Rights Act made the convention rights enforceable here, as part of our domestic law.

Vera Baird: But the hon. Gentleman knows that those rights existed before the mechanism, and the mechanism is an excellent one for balancing rights against one another.
	No one would dispute the importance of the rights; the right to life and not to be tortured, the prohibition of slavery, the rights to liberty, to a fair trial and not to be punished without legal authority, respect for private life and family life, the rights to freedom of thought, of expression and of assembly, and the right not to be discriminated against in the exercise of those rights. They give expression to the values of our society. They are common sense; what the person in the street, here and now, would expect our values to be. We all share them. They are rights that we have grown up with. These are human rights. The question is not whether those rights and the values that they represent are the right ones, but what is the best way that they can be given expression and protection under our law, and how can we use them positively to add value in our day-to-day lives?
	It is an irony that bringing our rights home, in the sense of making them enforceable here rather than in Strasbourg, somehow conspired to make rights to which we are all accustomed seem more alien and foreign, in particular for front-line public authority workers who have to work with them in the mainstream of their day-to-day business. At the very time that we are best able to use our local common sense to apply them, the use of human rights has sometimes produced results that make nonsense instead of common sense.
	People's rights have to be practical. They have to work in such a way that they can resolve conflicts—day-to-day conflicts, where the rights of the individual have to be balanced against the rights of the community. In the vast majority of cases, common sense tells us how to resolve those conflicts. Let me give a couple of examples. In January, there was a well publicised row about a decision by Derbyshire police not to release, supposedly on human rights grounds—I am not pointing a finger at what was said or who said it—photographs of convicted criminals who had escaped from prison. Their crimes were serious and included murder. The idea that the human rights of people convicted of such crimes could trump the legitimate use of photographs in trying to recapture the criminals is nonsense. Article 8 specifically recognises that interference with the right to privacy, which it gives, is justified if it is necessary in the interest of national security, public safety and the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, or for other reasons including the protection of others.
	Alternatively, take the case in which a man evading arrest in Gloucestershire went on to the roof of ahouse and while there, surrounded by the police, was supplied with—supposedly—Kentucky Fried Chicken. Gloucestershire police were quoted—rightly or wrongly—as saying that they had to look after his human rights, even though he was a bit of a nuisance. There is no Human Rights Act entitlement to Kentucky Fried Chicken—as a vegetarian, I welcome that, although I do not suppose it would ever be compulsory—and there is no right that can sensiblybe interpreted to give such an entitlement. It was nonsense.

Julian Lewis: I thank the hon. and learned Lady for being so generous in giving way. She has given a number of examples in which people who perhaps should have known better have over-applied what they imagined to be the provisions of the Act, but does she not accept that many verdicts handed down in court have also seemed to fly in the face of common sense? I think particularly of people involved in restraining others who have trespassed on their property, who are then pursued into court and sometimes convicted of assault on the trespassers; or of people who had no right to be in this country in the first place and who have launched attacks on and committed crimes in this country, but who cannot be excluded from the country for fear of their human rights being abused if they were sent to another country. It does not all come down to misinterpretation, does it?

Vera Baird: There was a heady mixture —[ Interruption. ] Yes, a dolly mixture of cases. It is difficult to unravel them to answer specifically on each. I cannot see the human rights implication in the first scenario—that of someone assaulting another person to stop a burglary—although there would be issues of appropriate defence of self and of property, which is a common law defence that has been around for a very long time. As for not deporting someone because of a danger to them, if there is an acute danger of a person being killed, I should have thought that even prior to the Human Rights Act being passed we would have been as reluctant as we are now to deport that individual. It is to some extent a question of balance, but the right to life is absolute and I do not shrink from saying that it ought to be.
	Let me give a more difficult example than those that I have given so far: the case surrounding the tragic murder of Naomi Bryant. It is a sobering example of the difficulties in striking a balance between the rights of the individual and the protection of the wider community. Anthony Rice was released from a life sentence and murdered Naomi Bryant nine months later. The Parole Board and the probation service were concerned about human rights legal action against them because he had served more than the 10-year minimum term fixed by the judge; consequently, they prioritised his right to liberty. However, the Human Rights Act rightly provides for a balance to be struck. There is a positive duty on the state to protect the public to safeguard the rights, such as the right to life, of the community who may be put at risk. Appropriate weight was not given to that duty on public authorities, but that is a further example in which although the Act itself was not at fault, its application was.
	Human rights are not about the protection of one group in society. Classically, they are about providing a practical framework to protect all our freedoms. If our freedoms require protection, and the freedom of others must be suspended to stop crime, resist oppression or prevent terrorism, the Human Rights Act will allow that balance to be struck, and that makes sense to us all. Of course, there are bound to be cases on the edge, grey areas where there is scope for disagreement, and cases that seem to go against the grain of popular opinion. There are difficult situations, and perhaps the most difficult concern terrorism.
	Recently, Eliza Manningham-Buller talked about the domestic terrorist threat. Police and security services are working at near capacity to disrupt 30 active plots; there are 200 networks, comprising 1,600 individuals known to be engaged in plotting terrorism; and there are more than 20 ongoing terror trials involving over80 defendants. That is a sombre picture. Against that backdrop, the Government's primary purpose of protecting the public becomes ever more imperative to attain and ever more difficult to achieve. Terrorism will ultimately be defeated by winning hearts and minds, and any counter-terrorism legislation has to be tested against the impact that it may have on any of the communities that we seek to protect. Human rights are far from being a straitjacket limiting our ability to defend ourselves; in fact, when we need to legislate, we can justify it by reference to human rights.
	Human rights go beyond racial, religious or community differences and reach to the common humanity that underpins us all. However difficult it is to sustain that idea in the face of terrorism—terrorism wants to emphasise difference and to battle in a barbarian way, extinguishing human life at random to make a partisan point—we must stay with human rights. They, and the Act, are essential in identifying, defining and protecting the values that we put to the forefront of our struggle against terrorism. Liberty and security are not opposites; they are two sides of human rights. My right to life and that of any of my Muslim or Jewish friends must be secured as best it can by the state. Diminution of that right is intolerable, and limiting freedom is undesirable. We must get away from the false dichotomy, in which security and basic freedoms are in opposition. We must remember that we have probably the widest panoply of anti-discrimination law in the world, and that we have a duty to protect life.

Vera Baird: Yes, as far as I am concerned, that is an appropriate analysis of how we should approach the issue. Of course, balancing can be a matter of opinion, and it is a good thing that we have the framework of the Human Rights Act, not only to help us and in our own views, but to help the courts to try to get it right. Take a situation that is almost impossible to manage, such as a case in which the intelligence services "know" someone to be involved in a terrorist plot. Perhaps there is evidence in a form that the criminal courts would accept, but the price to pay would be the loss of an agent's cover, and loss of the leverage to disrupt what might end up in multiple murder. Or perhaps the evidence is not in that form, but is of a kind that might convince an independent scrutineer of the terrorist legislation that it would be justifiable to use the evidence to detain somebody. Under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which was the Government's first attempt to get the balance right in near-impossible situations of that kind, the evidence that was produced did satisfy the scrutineer, in each and every case.
	However, the House of Lords found the Government's power to detain to be unlawful. They found it discriminatory, as it was an extended immigration detention power, and so only usable against a foreigner, although there were British terrorists, too, and they found that it was therefore disproportionate in its effects on the foreign community. The same rationale was used to detain people under control orders in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Those put the balancing powers of the Human Rights Act to the test, but the Act is there to be used for balance. Sometimes the courts say that the Government have got the balance right, and sometimes they say that they have got it wrong. In those extreme situations, the Government are limited in what they can do, but they have the backing of the duty to protect the public to allow them to do what we hope is enough. The Act provides a workable, desirable, demonstrably ethical framework within which hugely difficult decisions can be taken as fairly and as transparently as they can ever be.
	Returning to more peaceful concerns, let me give an example of human rights at their best. In "Something for Everyone: the impact of the Human Rights Act and the need for a Human Rights Commission," a piece of research carried out by the British Institute of Human Rights a few years ago, Emily Holzhausen from Carers UK is quoted. She says, speaking of the time before the Act:
	"Sometimes you have a situation where a disabled person doesn't want any help, and wants the person who's caring for them to do everything. The person who cares does round the clock care, incontinence, all those kinds of things. In terms ofthe balance of one individual against the other, if you discard the Human Rights Act, the law at present favours the disabled person's rights over the carer's rights. But the Human Rights Act actually addresses that. It is an enormously difficult and complex situation, and at some point there needs to be a compromise of rights. So that's where the Human Rights Act is useful."
	With its concept of balancing rights, the Human Rights Act is an ideal tool to use. It does not negate the essential humanity of any participant in a situation, but it helps to ensure that one person's rights and freedoms do not override another's so completely that there is little left of the second person's rights, or little respect for their dignity. That is how we want human rights to be used in public services—to frame thinking, and to guide judgments that result in fairness to all parties, so that the outcome is common sense. That might not be so readily achievable without a framework of rights for us to reason through.
	To make all those points clearer, last week the Lord Chancellor launched a campaign, "Human Rights: Common Values, Common Sense". It will take two forms. First, Ministers will make the point that human rights are our values and are common sense. Today's debate is part of that, in case anyone had not guessed. Misapplication of our rights, so that they appear not to accord with our values and common sense, is a recipe for ensuring that faith in them declines, and ensuring that their value to the public is weakened. That willput those rights under threat, and where that has happened—I detailed some examples—the people involved are hard-pressed front-line officials who have tried to do a proper job. It is our Department's job to make sure that people who have to apply, interpret and implement human rights law are fully equipped to do the job. We have partly done that, including by making available a toolkit to help people operate the legislation properly, but clearly we have not done enough.
	The second element of the campaign will be a concerted programme of reaching out to key services—to the police, local government, the health service and a multitude of others—to offer people as much help and support as we can when they face those difficult problems, and to offer them advice on how to come up with common-sense solutions based on human rights. My noble Friend Lord Falconer recently met the leaders of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and we are grateful for their early support. We intend to hold such meetings with many other, similar bodies.
	To move forward, we argue that although the Human Rights Act incorporated the European convention on human rights into UK law for the first time, those rights are deeply and profoundly British. They are there to protect the public, not to put people at risk. They are there to benefit the majority, not just minorities. Human rights are for the many, not just the few. As Lord Falconer characterised it, the campaign is about moving from nonsense to common sense—a short phrase but a big step, and a step that we are determined to take.

Henry Bellingham: First, I ought to declare my interest as a qualified barrister who practised for about 10 years. I welcome the debate, which the Lord Chancellor flagged up in a speech on human rights at Manchester university on9 February:
	"We will take the campaign to Parliament with a fully fledged debate on the Floor of the House."
	He will be disappointed by the number of Labour Members who have come to the House this evening to play a part in that debate. I am glad, however, that there are more Opposition Members than Government Members in the Chamber.
	I welcome this debate on a very important subject indeed. The first duty of any Government is to protect the country's security, but that has become an ever more demanding challenge. The rise of international terrorism, the mass movement of people and the transformation of communications technology, which makes it much easier for terrorists to plan an co-ordinate their campaigns, make it far harder for Governments to protect their citizens. In the west, the phenomenon of the suicide bomber is relatively recent—in the middle east, of course, it is nothing new—and such individuals are prepared to kill vast numbers of innocent people using whatever weapons they can lay their hands on. Thwarting the terrorist threat is an awesome responsibility, but it is the first duty of any Government.
	The other great challenge is to protect people's liberties and human rights; otherwise democracy and freedom will be undermined. To balance those two responsibilities, compromise or a trade-off are required. For example, advances in computer science, information storage and satellite monitoring systems make it easier than ever before for powerful Government Departments and agencies, whether public or private, to keep tabs on citizens and other people. Our citizens must therefore deal with an expanding array of increasingly complex bureaucracies that intrude into their lives on a scale and in a manner that previous generations would never have accepted or agreed to. The Opposition accept that the fight against terrorism inevitably means that the state must take new powers of surveillance and enforcement. We accept that the relationship between individual citizens and the powerful institutions of the state must change in response to changing circumstances, but it remains a vital requirement that any free and democratic society should go out of its way to protect those basic rights and liberties. Indeed, a free society is the best protection against terrorism and crime.
	As for the Government's response, they have been hyperactive since 1997, and 54 criminal justice Bills have been introduced. The Minister admitted in exchanges with me in a recent Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall that 3,000 new criminal offences have been added to the statute book. We support many of those new laws, but unfortunately much of the Government's legislation has undermined human rights, as it is authoritarian and ineffective. There was an ill-judged attempt by Her Majesty's Government to criminalise religious hatred, and we are highly sceptical of some of the new powers in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. We oppose the Government's attempt to undermine the right to trial by jury, and we oppose, too, the more draconian powers in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. We oppose the 90-day detention limit, and we strongly oppose the plans of Her Majesty's Government for identity cards.
	In addition, we have become a society in which Big Brother watches our every move. For example, only last week, Home Office Ministers agreed at an EU Council of Ministers meeting that police across Europe should be given free access to Britain's DNA, fingerprint and car registration databases. In due course, there will probably be a Euro-wide database, but the UK has by far the largest criminal DNA database in the world. Indeed, it is 50 times the size of the French equivalent. It has 4.2 million registrations, and that number is increasing by 0.5 million a year. The Home Secretary cannot even ensure the proper registration of criminal convictions of British nationals in the EU, so why is he pressing ahead with a scheme without any guarantees or safeguards in place?

Julian Lewis: Does that not illustrate the point that I was trying to make earlier? It is all well and good for Government Ministers to prate about applying common sense, but in the courts, judges have to apply and interpret the law. Applying and interpreting the law and applying common sense are often two very different things.

Henry Bellingham: I am glad to hear that. It is good news, but the hon. Gentleman would no doubt accept that it will take more than one or two statements from ACPO to change the culture that has built up.
	Let us consider the deportation of undesirable aliens who threaten our security, a point that was made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). Surely common sense dictates that we should be able to remove from this country those who want to do harm to this country and our citizens. We are a compassionate, understanding nation. Of course we will not send people back to countries where they will be persecuted or tortured.
	Over the past few years we have sent many young British soldiers to fight in wars in countries as diverse as Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. Many soldiers have lost their lives and we have spent a vast amount of money fighting those wars. As a result of those wars, we have brought a great degree of peace and stability to those countries, yet there are many people from those countries who claimed asylum in Britain and were allowed to stay here so long as there were serious problems and unrest in their own country representing a threat to them. Now that we have imposed democratic regimes in many of those countries, surely that argument falls apart. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should have a blanket policy of deporting anyone anywhere in the world. Of course we would not do that.
	Let us look at the case of the nine Afghans who hijacked the Boeing 727 in February 2000, a case which received a huge amount of coverage at the time. The Home Secretary said:
	"I continue to believe that those whose actions have undermined any legitimate claim to asylum should not be granted leave to remain in the UK. I plan to bring forward legislation to do this as part of the early Bill to strengthen our immigration laws."
	He went on to say that the serious crimes that the hijackers had committed were incompatible with refugee status. I hope we all agree with those sentiments, but has there been any action? No, because the Home Secretary knows that his plans are contrary to the human rights legislation. The Home Office should admit that.
	One of the cases that has had an impact on what the Home Secretary could do and what the court had to decide in that case was the Chahal case in the European Court of Human Rights in 1996, with which colleagues are probably familiar. The case has had a number of consequences. For example, in the Singh and Singh case in 2000, the Home Secretary at the time decided that although those two men had committed no crime under British law, they were nevertheless a serious threatto our security; but a British judge, guided by the Human Rights Act and its requirement to use ECHR jurisprudence—that is, the Chahal case—as a precedent, ruled that the Home Secretary could not make that judgment.
	The Special Immigration Appeals Commission was not happy about having to follow the ECHR jurisprudence. When giving judgment Mr. Justice Potts, a man who is not known for his authoritarian views and who is one of the more compassionate judges on the Bench, said that
	"law abiding citizens of the United Kingdom might reasonably feel disquiet about a state of affairs which permits international terrorists proved to be a danger to the national security to remain here".
	He could not have put it better.

Henry Bellingham: I shall carry on a little longer.
	The case of the paedophile at the gym occurred towards the end of last year, when a convicted paedophile was using a gym at a leisure centre which was also used by schoolchildren. The man had been convicted of sexually abusing a number of girls aged between 12 and 14, but the solicitors acting for the school and the local council said that a ban would not be practicable because it might infringe his human rights. That was another case of an organisation—a local authority—adopting a risk-averse approach.
	Only the other day, we had the case of the Babamuboni brothers, who were part of a gang that set out to rob guests at a christening party in Peckham in 2005. There was a certain amount of doubt over age, forged passports were involved, and all sorts of questions were raised as to how old they were, which was particularly vital because the way in which they could be sentenced depended on it. The police suggested that dental checks should be carried out on the two brothers, and we understand that those tests would have been accurate to within two or three months. However, the police took the view that under the Human Rights Act they were unable to force the brothers to undergo those tests.
	The Minister may say that those are all one-off, ridiculous cases and that they are absurd. However, not only has the HRA singularly failed to protect our citizens from the long arm and vagaries of an authoritarian and illiberal Government, it is hampering existing legislation. It has instilled in the police, the Prison Service, the probation service and many other public bodies throughout the country a risk-averse culture that ignores common sense.
	By giving new rights to terrorists and criminals, the Act has undermined and neutered some of our key existing laws. Her Majesty's Government have responded by bringing in ever more draconian legislation. Is not it ironic that the very Act that was designed to empower citizens with new rights is becoming one of the key drivers of illiberal and authoritarian law making? Not only is it hampering the fight against crime and terrorism, but it has helped to create a culture of rights without responsibilities—that is why we need a new approach.
	I feel very strongly that we need to follow the example of some other European Union countries, which have found a way of protecting their vital interests, but with reservations. France has a specific exemption for its armed forces and police. In Germany, there is a clearly codified constitutional document called the basic law that protects Germany's vital national interests. The European Court and the European Court of Human Rights can defer to any clearly defined domestic constitutional doctrine through what is called the margin of appreciation. We need to take advantage of that. The only answer is to repeal the Human Rights Act and consider introducing a new, modern Bill of Rights that can balance rights with responsibilities.

Alan Beith: Could the hon. Gentleman explain how that would change the situation? The omission of a right from the new Bill of Rights that he proposes would in no way preclude someone taking legal action in the European Court of Human Rights because we remain subscribers to the convention—or is he suggesting that we withdraw from the convention entirely?

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill of Rights would re-invoke the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy over EU law and the European Court of Human Rights. If we can make it work, we most certainly will.
	I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion because many hon. Members want to speak in the debate. The Government admit that there are flaws in the Human Rights Act. The Lord Chancellor is touring the country telling anyone who is prepared to listen that an injection of common sense will make it work properly. However, in the two speeches that he recently made, there are no answers to the fundamental flaws in the Act. I ask the Lord Chancellor and the Minister: why do they go on defending an Act that is beyond repair and not fit for purpose?
	Incidentally, if Ministers spent less time trying to defend the legislation, they might be able to sort out the problems in their own Department, such as the crisis of legal aid, which impacts on all our constituents. Why cannot Department for Constitutional Affairs Ministers work with Home Office Ministers?

Andrew Dismore: Trial by media does not create rights that people can go to court to enforce, and that is exactly what happened in the cases to which I referred. The media had not achieved that objective. An example is the case of the older people living in local authority residential care homes who secured much better protection against home closures, which involve risks to people's life, health, dignity and psychological well-being. Disabled people who had difficulty accessing care services because of restrictive manual handling policies have benefited from a judicial reinterpretation of the manual handling regulations to make them human rights compatible. Council tenants established a duty for local authority landlords to maintain their homes in decent condition, so that councils did not let properties that were unfit for human habitation. A disabled council tenant successfully used the Act to establish that a local authority hada positive obligation to enable her to lead as normala life as possible by providing the specially adapted accommodation that she was assessed as needing, but which it had denied her.

Andrew Dismore: If we were to try to produce a piece of legislation to deal with each and every one of those cases, we would never be able to plug all the gaps—which is what the Human Rights Act does, in bringing the European convention home to the United Kingdom.
	As things stand, however, the protections of the Human Rights Act in such cases are being whittled away because of the courts' interpretation of what is a public authority. Privatisation and contracting out are undermining the safety net provided by the Act for the most vulnerable people, such as the elderly andthe disabled. When I put that to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee, he said:
	"I think that anyone who is providing a public service is clearly subject to the same rules...The way to deal with it is to make sure that public and private sector bodies are treated the same when they are providing a public service".
	I agree. That is a key issue for the future of the Human Rights Act—an issue on which the Joint Committee on Human Rights will report in the future, and on which I introduced a ten-minute Bill—the Human RightsAct 1998 (Meaning of Public Authority) Bill.
	The Government's commitment to the rights and values protected by the Human Rights Act has increasingly been challenged by high-profile, but usually ill-informed, press reporting of maladministration, wrongly attributed to the Human Rights Act, by statements from senior Ministers and, as we have heard tonight, by statements from Opposition Front Benchers.
	In May 2006, the Prime Minister asked the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Home Office to conduct reviews of the impact of the HRA. The Joint Committee on Human Rights broadly welcomed the conclusion of those reviews. We reiterated our concern that one of the greatest challenges to human rights in the UK was the need to engage the public imagination and embed a human rights culture among ordinary people, not simply within public authorities, the House or lawyers' chambers—not that that has yet been achieved in any event. By a culture of human rights, we mean not the neglect of duties and responsibilities, but a climate in which respect for those rights becomes an integral part of our way of life, a reference point for our dealings with public authorities and one another.
	Such a culture cannot be achieved through litigation alone. It demands that decision makers understand human rights law correctly, and integrate into their policy and decision-making processes those real expectations—not the myths and not the excuses of politically correct jobsworths, who use bizarre misinterpretations as lame and bogus explanations—to ensure that the traditional British sense of decency and fair play, enshrined in the Act, is reflected in the way they work. A good example of that is the Kentucky Fried Chicken case, about which we have heard, and in which what was probably an unpopular and difficult decision to feed someone on a roof during a siege was somehow justified using the Human Rights Act, when the decision probably made common sense in the negotiations to get the man down safely. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Human Rights Act at all.
	However, damaging myths about human rights have taken root in the popular imagination. The JCHR examined in close detail three cases that led to calls for the amendment or repeal of the Human Rights Act. The first case was that of the Afghani hijackers, who were never convicted of an offence in the UK; their conviction was overturned on appeal. The second case was the deportation of foreign prisoners. That issue arises out of the European Court of Human Rights, as has correctly been said, and I suspect that we would come to the same conclusion, in relation to individual cases, across the House. The third case involved the management of Anthony Rice by the probation service. In respect of each of those cases, assertions were made by senior Ministers that the Human Rights Act, or the judges or officials interpreting it, were responsiblefor the unpopular events that took place. In eachcase, those assertions attributing the outcome to the Human Rights Act were unfounded, and in the report the Committee gives a full analysis of why that is the case.
	We welcome the Government's new commitment to human rights myth busting and raising public confidence in the Human Rights Act, but public misunderstandings are likely to continue so long as very senior Ministers fail to retract inaccurate comments already made or make further unfounded assertions about the Act, or it is used as a scapegoat for administrative failings. We have already heard about the high-profile case in which a police authority refused to publish photographs of convicted prisoners on the run, as it wrongly considered that publication would breach the escaped convicts' right to privacy. The Association of Chief Police Officers has confirmed to me that nothing in the Human Rights Act would prevent such publication in the interests of public safety. There may occasionally be operational reasons why photographs should not be published—for example, if they are out of date—or there may be other reasons, to do with a surveillance operation, but nothing in the Human Rights Act leads to that conclusion. It issues guidance only in respect of people who have not been convicted of any offence who may be suspects.
	The Lord Chancellor's speech on 9 February made him the chief myth buster, dispelling what he called the "clouds of nonsense". He was entirely correct to entitle his speech "Human rights and common sense". Ministries must be encouraged to take prompt action to prevent the development of Human Rights Act-based myths or scapegoating within their own areas of responsibility, which has happened.
	The recent Department for Constitutional Affairs review ruled out withdrawing from the European convention on human rights or repealing the Human Rights Act. It did not, however, rule out the possibility of amending the Human Rights Act in future. The Lord Chancellor told us that the value of an amendment would be to send a "message" to officials or public authorities, rather than to change the meaning or effect of the convention.
	In the JCHR's view, it is wrong to use legislation, and parliamentary time, to send messages about the law. That can be done through guidance and instructions to Departments. Amending the Act to enshrine a duty to protect would not add anything to the existing obligation to protect the right to life. Indeed, our summer report on counter-terrorism re-emphasised the duty of the state to protect its citizens from terrorism. We proposed a series of Human Rights Act-compliant reforms to the criminal justice system to that effect—for example, in relation to the use of intercept evidence in court, a matter that I understand is under detailed consideration and on which I hope that we will have a sensible answer.
	I am also referring to the need to allow the police to interview post-charge terrorist suspects and to allow adverse inferences to be drawn from a failure to co-operate, and to more judicial control over the detention processes. We came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to extend the pre-trial detention period—a view that I think is shared by the Opposition and which is supported, contrary to what we heard earlier, by requirements under the Human Rights Act. This also applies to concerns about the operation of control orders. Again, I understand that the control orders regime was opposed by the official Opposition in terms of the Human Rights Act.
	In contrast with the Department for Constitutional Affairs review, which provided a lengthy analysis to support its conclusions, the Home Office review has never been published. That review suggested that there was a "culture of risk aversion". The Government said that they were addressing that, but failed to provide any evidence of a culture of risk aversion having resulted from the Human Rights Act in the first place. Without proper open scrutiny of the Home Office review, there is a real risk that the implications of that so-called culture may be overblown or misreported, as we have heard from the Opposition tonight. I suggest that in her closing remarks my hon. and learned Friend the Minister might like to give us the reasons why the Government will not publish the review. That said, we welcome the fact that the Government did not assert that there was an imbalance in the criminal justice system that prioritised the rights of offenders over victims.
	The establishment of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights this year will give rise to a new impetus for the development of a positive culture of human rights in the UK. However, there is clearly much work to be done in the meantime. The commission will need time to find its feet. In the meantime, the Government must ensure that Ministers and public authorities do not cut across the benefits of the Act or undermine them by making ill-informed statements, which should be withdrawn when it is pointed out that they are plain wrong. Myths must still be busted, and it may be Ministers, not just the Lord Chancellor, who are in the best position to do that effectively. I am pleased that we have started to witness more of that activity recently. For example, on the lunchtime news, the Lord Chancellor quickly came to the case involving the Derbyshire police, saying that there was no reason under the Human Rights Act why those photographs should not be published.
	The Human Rights Committee will continue to work with the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to monitor and research the extent to which the Act has an impact on policy making and on the lives of ordinary people, not just by scrutinising Bills for their Human Rights Act compliance, but in a more positive way: by looking at Government policy statements to see whether they are genuinely Human Rights Act compliant, and by pointing out failures not just in legislation but in delivery of services. That is where the real battle should be fought—not over black letter law, but over ensuring that human rights are mainstreamed throughout our public services and, where services are not delivered, appropriately pointing that out.

David Heath: It isa pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I would have said that this was a timely debate, except that I fear that the time for it was possibly five or six years ago—it should have been held annually since—in order to counter some of the mythology that has, unfortunately, grown around the Human Rights Act. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor and the hon. and learned Lady on what they are doing. I do not say this often, but even the Attorney-General is encompassed in that big tent of praise for addressing some of the arguments that should be put forcefully about the value of the Act.
	It is an enormously valuable Act. In fact, I think it is the most important Act that the Labour Government have put through. It enshrines the foundations of a civilised society, which is important. It provides for the defence not of the criminal, but of the citizen against the state. That is important. It allows attacks on those rights that we have as citizens of this country to be remedied within a British court, rather than a court in Strasbourg and that is right and proper as well. That is why I find it difficult to understand some of the arguments that have been advanced against the Act.
	The mythology surrounding the Act has built up over the past six years. Newspapers, many of which should know better, have promulgated basic untruths about the implications of the Act. The culmination was when one tabloid newspaper last year proudly announced that it was leading a campaign, not against the Human Rights Act, but against human rights. To use the tabloid phrase, you could not make it up. I thought that this country was very proud of standing up for human rights and the rights of the citizen, yet a major British newspaper was campaigning against human rights.
	I am sorry to say this, particularly to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), but those newspapers have been aided and abetted by the Conservative party. In the past few years, I have often joined with in trying to defend the rights of the citizen against the Government in terms of civil liberties and human rights. Often, in arguing against what the Government have proposed, I have quoted from these Benches the articles of the European convention on human rights and heard that argument echoed by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, yet the Conservative party, for opportunistic and badly informed reasons, has decided that there is something to be gained by portraying the Human Rights Act as being inimical to human rights in this country—I do not believe that it is—and as something that it wishes to get rid of.

David Heath: I think that it is important that we legislate in the House to ensure the rights of the citizen. I do not see any contradiction between that and the provisions of the convention on human rights. On the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raises about control orders, had the Government taken our advice on the matter of control orders, they would not have found themselves in legal difficulties in implementing them, but they chose not to do so. They chose not to put in the safeguards that we demanded. The inevitable result was that the Human Rights Act did its job in requiring the Government to think again. That is a good illustration of the Act doing its job effectively.
	The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) made the point well that the last element that has helped to whip up that campaign has been senior Ministers in the Government—not the Lord Chancellor, not the Attorney-General, not the hon. and learned Lady, but a succession of Home Secretaries and the Prime Minister, who have lost no opportunity to rubbish the effects of their own legislation and to rubbish the decisions of judges made on the basis of that legislation. When shown to be wrong, as they have been, they have not made any effort to retract their statements. That is deplorable.
	Why do we have that campaign against the Human Rights Act? One reason is the allergy to the word "European". The fact that the name of the convention is the European convention on human rights leads some who are ill informed to assume that it is the spawn of the European devil: the European Union. It is not of course, as has been made clear in the debate. If anything, it was the creation of the British Government and the British judiciary after the war, very much supported by Sir Winston Churchill at the time, although perhaps not by Attlee. Of course, the spirit of Churchill is now dormant within the Conservative party. That is one element in the concern about the current Conservative attitude.
	There is confusion as to what the Act says. Very few people understand that it creates no new rights and that all it does is change the area of justiciability of those rights to a British court. That is something that British people should be very pleased about. They will save money, and find it easier to put their case to a British court than to go to a court in Strasbourg. Incidentally, a court in Strasbourg may have much less well defined sensibilities about British culture and British justice than a court here, yet there is a misunderstanding about that.
	Concern was expressed immediately after the passing of the Act that, because of the publicity attendant on its passing, there would be a huge appetite for litigation. I am sure that all hon. Members will have heard people in their surgeries who, when dismayed about some petty decision by a bureaucracy in their constituencies, say, "I know my human rights. I am going to get this under the Human Rights Act." They are almost always wrong because there is no requirement under the Human Rights Act that the lamp post outside their window should be moved 3 ft down the road, that the pothole be filled or all the other things done that they tell us about. They tell us, however, that what they want is a human right, that it is justiciable and that they will get a remedy in court.
	The reality is that the number of cases being brought under the terms of the Act is reducing markedly; there has been a 27 per cent. fall from the peak according to the most recent records, and barristers estimate that in only 5 per cent. of all cases is there any Human Rights Act implication at all in the judge's judgment.
	There are also failings of reporting—of the British media. Often a headline will be splashed across the front page about someone who is going to court because their human rights have been infringed in some way, but what is never reported is the fact that the case was laughed out of court and the person who brought it ended up out of pocket for putting forward such a prosperous proposition that his human rights had been in any way curtailed.
	There are also stories that are just plain wrong. We have already heard play from Members in all parts of the House about the incident on the roof in Gloucester—about the poor and much-quoted criminal on the roof. Let me say something drawn from my experience. I was for a while a chairman of a police authority and I was very much involved in policing policy in the Avon and Somerset area. I had experience of contingency planning for hostage situations. It is standard police practice, and always has been, to make sure that the material needs of an individual in a hostage situation, or in a situation where someone might throw themselves from the top of a building, are settled so that negotiations can be continued. That has nothing to do with human rights. As the Minister said, no article of the European convention on human rights mentions Kentucky fried chicken. That is simply not there, so why do we pretend that it is?
	In an intervention, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) raised an issue to do with an assault case. I am sorry to have to tell him that if someone is accused of assault, they are accused of it not under the provisions of the Human Rights Act. It might be the case that they are wrongly accused of assault—that they are preposterously accused of assault—but that would not be the fault of the Human Rights Act, so why pretend that it is?

David Heath: The alternative is that, instead of having 3,000 new offences, we will multiply that by a factor of 10; we will have an entire Lobbyful of new statutes from the Government. Of course there must be universal principles. What is wrong with universal principles of human rights? Do we not all subscribe to them? Are they not principles that we hold dear and that we want our law to be in accordance with? Of course they are, and that is what the Human Rights Act did. It caused no problems between 1950 and 1998, so why has it caused so many problems between 1998 and 2006? The answer to that is because of ill-informed and incompetent administration.
	I am puzzled and confused by the Conservatives' position on this issue. They say that they want to introduce a modern British Bill of Rights and by implication—or, rather, explicitly—they wish to repeal the Human Rights Act. That is the Conservative position. Setting aside that that appears to be a bit of a back-of-an-envelope policy devised by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), I notice that at the time when it was released he had not consulted his party colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who was supposed to be leading a study group on the constitution and who described the proposals as "xenophobic and legal nonsense". That might commend them to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash); that might be the settling argument so far as he is concerned.
	Setting that aside, I really do want to understand what the Conservatives are talking about. Apparently—I think that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said this—they do not intend to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. So every single provision and article of the convention would still be law in this country, and would still be applicable to any British citizen through application to the court in Strasbourg. Of course, were the Conservatives to change their mind and to withdraw from the convention, that would mean that we would also withdraw from the European Union. Again, that is an argument that would commend itself to the hon. Member for Stone and to some others, but as I understand it, that is not the Conservative party's position.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, which I was about to come to. What would be the practical implications of applying such a dual regime? A lot has been made of the Chahal  v. United Kingdom judgment, which, we must keep reminding ourselves, was made in 1996, when the Conservatives were on the Government Front Bench and the Human Rights Act had not even been conceived of as possible. The Chahal case is the extant jurisprudence on the subject, and the Conservatives are somehow suggesting that they will extricate themselves from the implications of that case without extricating themselves from the European convention on human rights. I cannot see how that can be done. Perhaps there will be a change in the European ruling; perhaps the Ramzy  v. Netherlands case will come to a helpful conclusion, which is what the Government want. However, unless it does, so far as I can see, the law will remain unchanged and no amount of tinkering here will affect that binding jurisprudence elsewhere.
	The Conservatives also say that they will be in a position to enter reservations on the European convention on human rights, but they must know that under article 57, it allows reservations to be made only on entry—on signing and ratifying the convention—and then only in respect of legislation that is in force at that time. So I am afraid that they have missed the boat regarding that opportunity by 57 years.
	The margin of appreciation, to which the hon. Member for Hendon referred, does not apply only to the Germans because they have their basic law; it applies to us and to every signatory to the European convention on human rights. It is already applicable, so there is no gain whatsoever to be made in that regard. Far from being a gain, having two competing sets of human rights requirements would be the worst of all positions. There would be one set established by the European convention on human rights, and justiciable in Strasbourg; and another set established by the Conservatives' British Bill of Rights—a local law for local people, providing local rights that would somehow be interpreted in a different way. Of course, they would not be interpreted differently, because people would go from one court to the other, there would be competing decisions and the result would be a legal nightmare. That is not a sensible provision.
	If, instead of that, the Conservatives are talking about a constitutional Bill of Rights, which we have argued for for years—a provision that sets out the rights of the British people in democratic terms and avoids the abuse of power by the Executive—we are with them, and we have something on which we can do business, because that has been part of our policy for a long time. However, if they are talking about a Union Jack-stamped equivalent of the European convention on human rights, I am afraid that it is a non-starter.
	Many others wish to speak, so I will conclude by saying simply this. It is very difficult to strike a balance between the rule of law and the difficulties that society faces, particularly, as we are often reminded, in the face of terrorism. It is not easily done, which is why we need the bedrock of the rights of the citizen. It is the easiest thing in the world to combat terrorism by just locking everybody up and throwing away the key. There would be no terrorism then, but it is not the British way—happily, it is not the European way since the European convention on human rights—and we should not espouse it. I am all for the rule of law, but I am all against the rule by tabloid editors, and that is why the Human Rights Act is so important.

Nia Griffith: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I shall not repeat the many excellent points that were made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Given the time constraints, I want to focus on two issues: the meaning of "public authority", and the Government's commitment to ensuring that the public and the wider public sector have a better understanding of the Human Rights Act.
	The understanding of the meaning of "public authority" is vital in ensuring the effectiveness of the HRA. There are many different providers of services to the public. Charities and voluntary groups provide services largely through taxpayers' money via grants and agreements. Private companies receive public money in return for the services that they provide. Charitable groups provide services largely through donations from the public. Other providers receive money from the public in the form of lottery funding. The list goes on. I argue that, wherever a service provider is funding a service thanks to money that can be traced back to members of the public who are not paying for a direct transaction themselves as consumers but paying a third party to provide services for others, those third parties should be considered as public authorities and should have to comply with the HRA.
	Charitable status in itself implies a public subsidy because of the tax concessions, so any body that has such status should also come under the HRA. If any such body complains that it cannot afford to comply with the HRA, it should seriously question whetherit should be involved in the activities that it is undertaking. I am sure that the public giving donations or paying taxes do not want their money to prop up projects or regimes that do not respect users' dignity and human rights.
	I am therefore concerned about the fear, expressed in the Department for Constitutional Affairs review, that widening the definition of "public authority" could drive private providers out of the market. For a start, such a view could lead to considerable inconsistencies in different parts of the country. There could be a very different situation in an area in which an authority continues to manage a service in-house, compared with one in which its management has been contracted out. It would give rise to the absurd situation whereby redress against a public authority and a private provider would have to be approached in different ways. Far more worryingly, such an approach would send out the message that the HRA is of no concern to private providers.
	The HRA is important not only for its legal implications, but for the culture that it creates. In other words, the Act is not simply about offering redress to those whose rights are infringed but, we hope, about creating a culture in which rights are respected and individuals do not have to turn to the law. It is therefore important to ensure that any provider that receives public money to offer a public service is included in the meaning of "public authority".
	We also need a positive promotion of what the HRA actually means. Let me draw a parallel. All but nine of the 785 MEPs are white, but five of those nine are British. While I am concerned about that very low figure for the whole of the EU, we can at least take pride in the fact that five of them are British—thatwe have made greater progress than many of our European partners in the representation of ethnic minorities in public life. That does not happen by accident. EU officials in Brussels may say that there is nothing legally to prevent members of ethnic minorities from becoming MEPs, but we know from experience that it takes more than that. It requires recognising that the matter is an issue and that we need a positive action plan to take steps to ensure more comprehensive representation of all sectors of society. It is exactly the same with human rights. It takes more than the mere existence of the Human Rights Act to engender a real understanding of the principles and how they translate into the realities of everyday life. That is a much greater task and has to be tackled on several different levels. That is why I welcome the commitment in the DCA review to ensuring that the public, and the wider public sector, are better informed about the benefits that the Act can provide for ordinary people.
	We could start with education. Learning about human rights is an important part of citizenship education, but we need to ensure that it is delivered well. In some schools, citizenship education is tacked on to personal and social education and is often delivered by form teachers who have no preparation for it. While they may be enthusiastic and inspiring teachers in their own subject, they may have to deliver material with which they are scarcely familiar themselves. Indeed, if they are following a class of children from the age of 11 to 16, teachers may teach that lesson or module only once in five years. Citizenship education is far too important for that.
	Citizenship education should include helping young people to develop a meaningful understanding of human rights and it needs to be delivered by a team of specialist teachers who have the time to prepare the lessons thoroughly and deliver them to numerous classes, so that they develop an expertise in dealing with the issues that young people raise. Teachers should also be able to inspire and stimulate meaningful discussion.
	The same needs to happen throughout Government. We need concerted programmes across the whole of Government, throughout the public sector and for all of those who are acting in the capacity of the public sector, so that there is a proper understanding of what the Human Rights Act means in practice and of when it is relevant and when it is not relevant.
	Some sectors of society and the media have taken a perverse pleasure in making fun of what they call political correctness, ignoring the fundamental thinking behind the concept—ensuring that sectors of society that have frequently suffered discrimination and abuse are not subject to sexist, racist, homophobic or other disparaging comments—and they are doing the same thing with the concept of human rights. The term has been bandied about carelessly and cited as a factor when, as my hon. Friends illustrated, it was completely irrelevant. Such carelessness, or even downright ridiculing, is damaging. First, it fudges the whole issue of what human rights are, why they matter and how the legislation can provide valuable guidelines to what we in a civilised society may expect as a norm when it comes to respecting the dignity and rights of others. The issue is not just the threat of court action or actually going to court, but that the guidelines should be fundamental to our thinking.

Richard Shepherd: Listening to the debate so far, one wonders why there was a need for it. The confidence of the Government, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and indeed the hon. Member for Somertonand Frome (Mr. Heath) would seem to admit of no difficulties in respect of the HRA. The Minister gave a curious history of the issue. The issues that confronted the greatest Labour Government of the 20th century were the very issues that this House and this country are still tussling over.
	The Attlee Government was concerned about questions of enforceability and the divergence between the civil and common law approaches. They believed in a narrowly defined series of rights, whereas the legal tradition of France, Italy and Belgium preferred the evolution of a jurisprudence of the rights of a court. Theirs was the civil law tradition, as opposed to the common law tradition. The Attlee Government were also opposed to a system of individual petition and a court of compulsory jurisdiction. However, the exigencies of the day—including the political anxieties of the European continent, the coup in Czechoslovakia and the majority of just six after the 1950 election—meant that the draft convention was accepted.
	Lord Chancellor Jowitt regarded that acceptance as inevitable for political reasons, even though he wrote in his memorandum to the Cabinet Committee that, from the point of view of administration of law, he regarded that necessity as "an unqualified misfortune". It was ratified by the United Kingdom in March 1951 with no reservations and it was a seminal piece of legislation. It was a major constitutional break with British practice. It was not quite on the scale of the European Union accession treaties, but it opened up our system of law and the sovereignty of Parliament to challenge by an extraterritorial court. It committed the United Kingdom Government in international law to protecting certain of the rights of its citizens. The proper relations between the citizen and the state were now a legal as well as a political issue. The Rubicon was crossed.
	The right to petition was granted in 1965, but the first case that the United Kingdom Government lost was Golder  v. United Kingdom in 1975. In that case, the court implied in article 6 a right of access to the courts. I do not quibble with that as it seems logical in itself, but its importance was that a contracting state was bound by more than the rights that appear on the face of the convention. No one reading the original convention could possibly have an objection to its provisions; they are a summation of our common law rights. Some of them are in our Bill of Rights and they are repeated, almost word for word in some articles, in the first 10 amendments to the United States constitution. The importance of those rights is more than that of those that appear on the face of the document. Counsel for the United Kingdom argued that the UK
	"had no intention of assuming, and did not know that it was expected to assume"
	an obligation to accord a right of access to the courts, yet in international law it was held to be bound by such a right.
	In Tyrer  v. the United Kingdom in 1978, the Court majority declared that the European convention is a living instrument, which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions. That encapsulates the broader tension in the role of the convention and its interpretive organs. In "Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales", Professor Feldman—the most distinguished adviser to the Joint Committee on Human Rights—notes that
	"other states acquire an interest in the way in which a state is treating people within its jurisdiction. That interest can be pursued not only through international diplomacy but also through international law."
	That presents a dilemma for Dicey's view of the British constitution, and we do ourselves small justice if we do not consider those tensions. The reason why the Government are both divided and on the back foot over the so-called human rights issue is that they are caught: a judgment can be made through law—through legal instruments—but it can be confounded because we breach not the headline articles but an expansive Court that leads us into territory that was unconsidered and unrealised by the originating Labour Government.

William Cash: I dealt with that very question with the then Home Secretary and I think that it perhaps played some part in his ultimate removal. I challenged him specifically on the question of habeas corpus and he was in a complete muddle. He did not know what to say, because he could not tell me whether it was or was not applicable. He contradicted himself. As I said in my speech at that time, the point is that the rule of habeas corpus is the ultimate and most sacred provision available to judges in all circumstances. It overrides all other requirements of the judiciary. As Lord Steyn and a number of distinguished judges have made clear, their most sacred duty is to ensure habeas corpus.
	My answer to the hon. Gentleman is very simple. These rights are inherent in our system and cannot be overridden. In relation to control orders, the "red judges", as we call them, would in the circumstances that I envisage go in to make sure that there was no unfair treatment of alleged suspects even if we were90 per cent. certain that they were terrorists. They must be treated properly. However, that is not the way in which the Human Rights Act operates—hence the control orders and the problems that have flown from them.
	Another aspect on the formulation of legislation—I am talking about the whole breadth of legislation—has to be considered carefully. A paper was produced, although I do not think that it was in the days when I was shadowing the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. By the way, however, I am not sure whether Lord Falconer of Thoroton is the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs or the Lord Chancellor, and when he is which and when he is the other. The fact remains that in this paper produced in July last year, it is made crystal clear on page 20 that, in respect of the provisions for making a statement of compatibility,
	"The result is that all Government Bills coming before Parliament since the Act"—
	the Human Rights Act 1998—
	"became law must have been through a process of careful scrutiny by officials and lawyers in order to brief the relevant Minister prior to the Minister certifying their view."
	It goes on to say:
	"Questions of proportionality, and the identification of policy options that produce the least interference with Convention rights, should be embedded in the policy development process... Guidance to departments has consistently made it clear that human rights proofing is not simply an exercise to be carried out after legislation has been drafted."
	In other words, we have sold ourselves down the river lock, stock and barrel to this principle of universality contained in the European convention on human rights—and, for that matter, in the 1948 universal declaration of human rights that was passed in the United Nations. We have therefore handed over to the courts at the same time the application of the law in order to ensure that these principles set out in the paper are complied with. It is like the hunting of the snark.
	The plain fact is that all civil servants and every public authority are under an obligation to give effect to these principles irrespective of their practicality. No wonder all these problems have arisen, to which the Minister, my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome have referred. Misunderstandings are bound to arise from the impossibility of being able to relate these universal principles to practical circumstances. That is where the advantages of our common law system, which deals with specific cases in specific ways, are clear. The effect of the universal application of these principles has created problems for our statute law in that, although we can override it—as the case of Simms  v. O'Brien and Lord Hoffmann's judgment on the Human Rights Act 1998 made clear—the general application of the system employed and set out in this paper ensures that the whole of the human rights principles is embedded in the manner in which all Government Bills are introduced. That is where the problem lies. We no longer have regard to specific circumstances, which is one of the reasons why we get into such difficulty over the whole question of terrorism.
	The issue of terrorism has brought up the whole question of public security and the safety of the nation in a way that is frequently inconsistent with the universal application of these principles as set forward in the European convention on human rights, the Human Rights Act 1998 and, indeed, the United Nations human rights declaration of 1948. Indeed, I would go even further. I went back to find out about the rapporteur of the universal declaration, who turned out to be a Mr. Charles Malik, one of the great jurists of the time. He said that there were four basic principles. Amongst other things, he said:
	"In my opinion, there is here involved the deepest danger of the age, namely, the extinction of the human person as such in his own individuality and ultimate inviolability, and therefore, the disappearance of real freedom of choice."
	That freedom of choice lies in our democratic system. That is what we should rely upon to guarantee, through elected representatives and through our democratic system, that we make appropriate provision for the specific circumstances and do not draw down these generalised universal principles, which then fall foul of the specific difficulties that arise from time to time. Edmund Burke understood that completely. This is where we have gone wrong.
	There is a very simple lesson to be learned from this debate. It is that universal declarations do not work and that we should be specific in safeguarding people's liberties. The rights of the people are vested in this House of Commons, which is the place where decisions should be taken on behalf of the British people as a whole.

Mike Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is either deliberately missing the point or wants to mislead the House in believing that this is just about habeas corpus. It is not; it is much wider than that. Human rights embrace much more than that. The right to hold a different view is enshrined. Habeas corpus would not protect that right. He was completely wrong in emphasising only habeas corpus. Once again, doing that will create the very myths of which many hon. Members are critical.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was right to bring the Government to account by asking why they have taken so long to hold this debate. Those myths have persisted in the minds of the public and others since the first instigation of the Bill. Why has it taken the Government six years to start to try to unravel them? Why was it not a Government responsibility to explain to the people of this country, and, indeed, to the House, what the implications would be? Why is it now, six years on, that we are seeking to find a definition of a public body? Why has it taken so long?
	I ask the Minister to clarify in her winding-up speech the point that I made in an intervention on her opening speech. I am still not clear how her Department will help those public bodies disseminate through their systems the way in which they should make such judgments. That is the point at which I differ from my hon. Friend. I do not blame the people who make those decisions and the wariness that some of them have. I am still a member of a local authority, and I have witnessed cases in which people at a very low level have made decisions that have been subsequently challenged in court, and they have not had the right advice and guidance at hand.
	Many of those decisions, like the one in the case of the man on the roof, were made by operational commanders on the spot at the time, and for the right reasons. They were facing a dilemma: should they bring down the man by force, or should they try to talk him off the roof by answering his plea for food and the specific naming of the food that he wanted? I do not share my hon. Friend's view that this is a bureaucratic nightmare, with people making the wrong decisions because they are over-cautious. When they make the wrong decisions, in most instances it is because they have been badly informed, or not informed, about the rights. There is an obligation on the Government to explain the position fully.
	I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that the House is entitled to an answer to the question thatthe Joint Committee on Human Rights asked about the 2004 review. In response to the specific question raised by the Select Committee, the answer was:
	"The 2004 Strategic Review has been superseded by the Review of the Implementation of the Human Rights Act. No useful purpose would now be served by its publication."
	How do we know what was raised in the 2004 review that necessitated a subsequent review of the implementation of Human Rights Act? How do we know that the right issues are not being tackled? How do we in the House, and the great British public, who in the main believe some of the myths that are being perpetrated, know that the Government are not delivering yet another smokescreen? The impression will be spread that there is something to hide. Why hide it?
	Okay, the strategic review has been superseded by yet another review, but surely that review came to some conclusions about where the priority should lie and what the subsequent review should take on board. The House is entitled to a proper explanation of why were unable to have that information. If it is so irrelevant, what is there to hide? Give it out: let us read it and understand it. Let us see for ourselves. Let us make citizens' judgments on what the Government said about their own legislation. It is nonsense not to allow that.
	I share the views of the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), who made an excellent and thoughtful speech on behalf of the people who are in a position to be challenged time and time again in relation to the legislation. Surely we owe it to them to make a clear statement of intent, to say who is covered. It is no good the Prime Minister saying in a speech that he believes that the public and the private sector should be treated the same, if that is not developed in such a way as to carry it forward into law. The current legislation allows the private sector to walk away. The hon. Lady was right to say that where bodies can trace their financing back to a public source in any way, they should be covered by public legislation in the same way as any bona fide local authority. There has to be either a sensible argument against that, or a sensible case for legislation to be amended to take account of it.

Mike Hancock: The Minister was right to identify her example as frivolous. It was also hopelessly off the point that was made by the hon. Member for Llanelli, which I am attempting to elaborate on. It is unfair that the public sector is challenged on a daily basis across the country over the way in which it provides home care, yet the private sector is in some way exempt from that. The hon. Lady made it quite clear—other Members have alluded to this—that the public purse being used was really about the provision of services to the public in connection with a service that may no longer be provided in the public sector. That applies to health, some forms of education, social care, drug rehabilitation and so on. It even applies to the way in which prisoners are treated by the private sectorand the public sector. Prisoners being dealt with bya private company presumably do not have thesame protection if they are being transported— [ Interruption. ] The Minister nods and says that they do. I hope that that is the case.
	Nevertheless, there is still the point about clarification, which is what the Select Committee sought. Members will know from what confronts them on a weekly basis at their advice centres that many people are confused about who is covered and who is not, and who has a right to challenge an authority under the legislation and who does not. Many lawyers will probably become very rich by giving out the idea that this is an easy trail for people to follow, but it most certainly is not.
	I ask the Minister to look at specific cases—if we really do cherish the idea of human rights. I happen to believe that a country's citizens judge themselves by their willingness to have those rights properly protected and enshrined, and that all citizens should be given the same rights to protect themselves and their interests, as stipulated in the Bill. Most reasonable people in the United Kingdom would suggest that those are rights that we deserve to have, which people over the generations have died to defend in this country.
	I do not take lightly the suggestion that there is abuse of the system, but we know that there is. Time and time again, the Government abuse the system. On a weekly basis at my advice centre, I meet people who have sought leave to extend their legal right to remain in this country. They were granted leave to appeal. Their asylum application had failed, but nevertheless they were given four years to remain. They attempt to renew that and are told that their case will be dealt with within 13 weeks. I have in excess of 100 cases pending where that time has been exceeded by at least 12 months, and in some instances by nearly two years. Many of those people have lost their jobs, because they have no legal proof to say that they have a right to a job in the United Kingdom. That is costing the state more money. Yet, when they seek advice to find out whether they can challenge the state, they are told that they do not have that right. The situation is bizarre. We have a Government who want to defend human rights, yet neglect to address them when it comes to the way in which they, as agents of the state, behave.
	It is sad that the Government are not prepared to fund the European Court properly. The Court has a funding crisis, and a person taking a case there can expect to wait for anything from eight to 10 years, because there is a huge backlog of cases. However, the Government, along with other European countries, have perpetrated zero growth on the Court's budget, which inevitably means that its work is heavily restricted. Why have we heard no proper explanation of the Government's actions on that count? If they care about human rights, they must prove that in the various international bodies to which they belong—and sadly, they do not.
	I am a member of the parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe. Why is that body so strapped for funds? The very organisation that was set up 50-odd years ago to build on what Winston Churchill wanted—a body defending the very things over which we had just fought a war, in which millions of people died to defend them—is strapped for cash. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who are representatives at the Council of Europe have argued time and time again that Ministers should change the way in which we treat that organisation. It is a national disgrace that we are not prepared to examine these issues properly and fairly.
	I have listened with great interest to all hon. Members who have spoken. They have all commented about the fact that the Act is confusing to members of the public. That has perhaps led to people having a genuine hatred of the thought of human rights cropping up. I meet people who want to specify an infringement of their human rights as one aspect of their objection to a planning application. I am sure that other Members have had similar experiences. It is difficult to persuade such people that they need something more than that if their objection is to succeed. Why is such a thing happening? This is about not only citizenship training and disinformation put out by the media. We can talk about the media as much as we like, but they are not to blame. The House and the Government are to blame for the mess that the Act has got into and the misrepresentation throughout our nation to which that has led. They now have an opportunity to put the situation right.
	I hope that the Minister has listened to what has been said. All hon. Members have attempted in their speeches to defend the right of the individual to the rights that each of us cherish. Having such rights enshrined in law is a fundamental way in which to judge a state's worth, and taking that away would be a big mistake. However, the citizens of this country should have the right to have those rights explained to them properly, and I suspect that the Government have a real desire to do just that.

Andrew Selous: We have concentrated fairly largely on the human rights aspect of our debate on values, rights and responsibilities. I hope to touch on values and responsibilities in my contribution. However, I have a long-standing interest in, and concern about, human rights. I am a former secretary of an Amnesty International group that looked after the rights of prisoners of conscience, as they were called then—I do not know whether that is still the case. They were people from countries throughout the world who were imprisoned for no other reason than the beliefs than they held, rather than physical violence of any form.
	One of my concerns is the way in which aspects of human rights legislation are starting to be interpreted in a very secular way. We have recently seen examples of that in the House during our consideration of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the sexual orientation regulations. I am worried that we are subtly—perhaps even inadvertently—introducing a hierarchy of rights in which the secular trumps the religious on every occasion. I do not know whether that is intentional, or whether the situation has crept in that direction over time.
	A few days ago, I received a petition from one of my constituents. Organised, I believe, by Premier Christian Radio, it is entitled, "Declaration to Protect Christian Values". I shall read it out—it is very brief. It states:
	"As a citizen of the British Commonwealth, I am requesting by my signature below that you as a Member of Parliament give the rights of Christians equal value when drafting or voting on legislation. Whilst I understand and embrace the need to uphold the rights of other groups and beliefs,"—
	quite right—
	"the rights of Christians should not be compromised or subordinated to placate those views. Thank you for upholding the rights of all citizens, including Christians."
	That expresses some of the concern. Perhaps other hon. Members' constituents have sent similar petitions to them.
	The sexual orientation regulations arose from a European directive—I am not saying anything against Brussels; that just happens to be the case. The directive, 2000/78, calls for a framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and outlaws discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. I am sure that all of us here agree with that. The directive also stated that the EU
	"respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations".
	What is interesting is that the EU left member states free to make specific provisions for religion, but the UK Government chose to redefine employment and occupation to include the work of adoption agencies, which is worrying, because that has not been done in other EU countries. At present, unmarried couples and homosexual couples may seek the services of almost any adoption agency in the land other than the Catholic agencies. The Government are shortly to introduce legislation under which the Catholic agencies will not be able to operate, because they operate on the principle, which is true to their conscience, of saying that they wish to place children only with married couples.
	What worries me is that we have breached a conscience provision already established in law. We allow doctors, on grounds of conscience, not to perform abortions. We give women a legal right to have an abortion if they so choose, but we do not given them a specific legal right to go to a particular doctor regardless of whether that doctor wants to perform an abortion. It seems that, shortly, there will be a fundamental inconsistency in that area of law, and I wonder whether it is a just a matter of time before the Government get rid of that conscience provision covering doctors.

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I am concerned about the hierarchy of rights. The history of this country, going back to the Toleration Act 1689, demonstrates that we have followed the fundamental principle of allowing differences of view to co-exist happily, rather than seeking an overarching, dictatorial format.
	In a different sphere, there are numerous examples of charities operating in the public sphere, perhaps with public funds, now finding themselves excluded from applying for public funds. I understand that about a third of Christian charities now feel that they are being discriminated against, not because they want to proselytise or convert—it would be wrong of them to do that with public money—but because they want to be authentic and to care for people, the poor and the marginalised, in the way that they are motivated to do.
	Let me give three recent examples. On 10 February, Charles Moore wrote about a charity in south London that ministered to single mothers of all faiths and none. It has been denied funds purely because, on its website, it shows that it is a Christian charity. It sought assistance for the very good work that it was doing, but it received a letter of rejection that said:
	"your assistance for single parents includes extending Christian comfort and offering prayer".
	That was deemed so outrageous and wrong that it was sufficient reason why that charity should not seek to continue doing the kind of good work that Christian charities, indeed charities of all faiths, have done for many years.
	The second example is of a woman who wanted to be a foster-parent to older children. We need more foster-parents, but she was refused permission on the following grounds:
	"your beliefs do not allow you to actively promote another religion for a child".
	How stupid to deny foster-children in need of care the services of an otherwise excellent foster-parent. The third example concerns a small Christian charity. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who is on the Front Bench, will take note, as it operates from Framingham Earl in Norfolk; I do not know whether that is in his constituency. It tries to help people in the area out of prostitution. It says that the situation is one of
	"discrimination...on people who simply want to help those less fortunate than themselves".
	It says that it thinks that the attitude
	"comes from people who probably have scant knowledge of the Christian faith and principles".
	It comments that it is deeply worrying that the work that churches and Christians have done over the centuries to help fight poverty and relieve deprivation is being called into question.
	Those are worrying issues, and they were brought home to me vividly only the Friday before last in my own constituency. A gentleman came to see me in my surgery. He was a father with a partner and two children, and his partner is very shortly to have her third child. His income support had been taken away from him, and his family had literally no money. They had one bottle of milk in the fridge and one loaf of bread in the larder; that was it for the weekend. It was half-past 5 on a Friday night, and he asked what I could do. I rang the office of the district manager for Jobcentre Plus, and to its credit, there was someone there at half-past 5 on a Friday night. I spoke to the lady there, but of course the local jobcentre was shut, and it was too late to get an emergency loan. She asked, "Do you have a Salvation Army branch locally?" and I said yes.
	I put in a call to Major David Squibb of the Leighton Buzzard Salvation Army, and he went out that weekend with food parcels for that family. The family was fed over the weekend because of that man's Christian vocation and commitment. Public sector workers are wonderful people, but at half-past 5 on a cold Friday evening in winter, the organs of the state were not available, locally or nationally, and could not go and feed a hungry family that had no money and no food. We have to recognise that Christians who do such work are motivated by their faith and their beliefs. If we take that away from them, we will harm those who are most marginalised in our society, and who need their support. I commend what Major David Squibb did, and I have no doubt that the Salvation Army and many other bodies do similar work in all our constituencies.
	What worries me is that the Government, in their move to end multiculturalism—something that the Prime Minister talked about in his speech of 8 December 2006—are trying to push matters of faith entirely into the private domain. There was much in the Prime Minister's speech, which underpinned the values that we are talking about, that I welcome, that was wonderful, and that I have called for many times, both in the House and outside. We need to focus not on what divides us, but on what unites us as a country, such as the English language, and our shared loyalty to the institutions of the country and to our sovereign—all that brings us together. We can all sign up to something that the Prime Minister summarised succinctly at Prime Minister's questions a week or so ago, when he basically said, "Diversity, good; division, bad". That is exactly the message of the Toleration Act 1689.
	The Prime Minister said in his speech in December:
	"But when it comes to our essential values—belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage—then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common; it is what gives us the right to call ourselves British. At that point no distinctive culture or religion supersedes our duty to be part of an integrated United Kingdom."
	Reading between the lines, he was probably saying that we are going to set our face firmly against Sharia law, which is absolutely right. I do not want to be ruled by a Christian theocracy, either, but I am worried that the Prime Minister is pushing matters of faith out of the public sphere or realm entirely and into private practice. In other words, we are happy with Christian people, but not with Christian citizens. That should be of concern in this of all years, as we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Wilberforce's achievement in abolishing slavery. If he had been required to confine his beliefs to his personal life and not expand them, as he and many others did, in the House, how much the poorer would we be, and how much longer would the terrible tragedy of slavery have continued in this country and around the world? I urge the Minister to reflect on those concerns, not least the relief of the poverty experienced by many of our constituents.

Douglas Carswell: It is privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who made an extremely eloquent and thoughtful contribution on human rights and values.
	The Human Rights Act should be repealed, and the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European convention on human rights. That view may not find a great deal of favour in the Westminster village, but it has gained favour in the country at large. As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I do not believe that it is enough simply to repeal the Human Rights Act. The UK must curtail courts' ability to adjudicate on the basis of the ECHR, which necessarily involves withdrawing from the convention, and not merely unincorporating it from UK law. Criminal rights legislation must be scrapped in its entirety. The Human Rights Act gave UK courts the ability to adjudicate directly on the basis of the ECHR. Prior to the incorporation of the convention in UK law, domestic courts referred to it in a limited way, but since incorporation, they have adjudicated with growing frequency on the basis of the ECHR. In doing so, they have begun actively to prevent our democratically elected Government from responding to serious challenges facing the country.
	Public policy solutions must be developed to respond to the new challenges posed by terrorism and the mass movement of people, but human rights legislation prevents us from developing effective responses to those challenges. There are three cases in which it can be shown that it is not simply the Human Rights Act that is at fault but the ECHR: the failure to deport nine Afghan hijackers; the granting of freedom to Anthony Rice to commit murder; and the failure to deport foreign criminals. Apologists for the Human Rights Act will undoubtedly, and disingenuously, try to make the case that it is not the Act per se that is at fault, but that is correct only insofar that it is the ECHR rather than the Act that is to blame.
	Turning to the failure to deport the Afghan hijackers, on 10 May 2006, the High Court overturned the Home Secretary's decision that it was not appropriate to grant nine Afghan nationals discretionary leave to enter the UK. The Government's reaction to the High Court judgment suggested that the High Court had somehow incorrectly interpreted human rights law. The implication seemed to be that the Human Rights Act was at fault. This was not, strictly speaking, the case. It was the European convention on human rights, as much asthe Act, that was responsible for the failure to remove the nine supposed hijackers.
	The decision that the nine Afghan nationals could not be returned to Afghanistan was taken not by the High Court on 10 May 2006, but by a panel of three immigration adjudicators on 9 June 2004, and the adjudicators ruled that the Afghans be allowed to remain in the UK under article 3 of the European convention on human rights. The adjudicators' decision was not made on the basis of any disputed interpretation of the Human Rights Act. Rather, it was the interpretation of the European convention on human rights by the Strasbourg court that was responsible. The hijackers were correctly refused asylum by the adjudicators under the Geneva refugee convention, but they were given what is, in effect, a back-door asylum right under the ECHR.
	Another big myth about the human rights legislation is that surrounding the decision to give freedom to Anthony Rice. Again, it is highly disingenuous—

Douglas Carswell: Absolutely not. I am simply pointing out that the decision was made under the ECHR. I very much hope that a responsible Home Secretary would never return somebody who faced the risk of torture. My purpose is to point out that it is not the Human Rights Act, but the European convention, that is responsible.
	Regarding the Anthony Rice case, on 10 May 2006 Her Majesty's inspector of probation published a report of his review of the case of Anthony Rice. The report found that one of the reasons why the Parole Board had underestimated the risk of harm to others when it decided that Rice was safe to release was that
	"the people managing his case started to allow public protection considerations to be undermined by its human rights considerations".
	At the time the Human Rights Act was introduced, it was the stated aspiration of the Government that the Act would be more than merely a technical instrument to enable courts to adjudicate on the basis of the ECHR. It was hoped that the Act would bring about a fundamental transformation towards a "human rights culture". The Anthony Rice case suggests that the Government have been all too successful in creating precisely such a culture. A vague "human rights culture" ensured that parole officials set a convicted criminal free to murder. Mr. Rice was set free because the Parole Board feared that human rights legislation meant that if it did not release him under licence, the courts would step in and do so anyway.
	The third myth about human rights is represented by the failure to deport foreign prisoners. On 3 May 2006 the Home Secretary made a statement to the House setting out proposals to change the system governing the deportation of foreign prisoners. The statement followed the revelation that substantial numbers of foreign prisoners who would have been considered for deportation on their release had instead been freed into the community.
	Again, it is deeply invidious to imply that human rights legislation is not at fault for that catastrophic failure of public policy. The courts have chosen to interpret articles of the ECHR, regardless of whether or not the ECHR is incorporated into UK law, in such a way as to effectively prevent deportation to many third countries, including other countries that have signed up to the convention. It is not simply the Human Rights Act that is at fault, but rather the European convention on human rights and the courts' willingness to adjudicate on the basis of it that is the problem. We should seek to treat not the symptoms, but the fundamental cause of the problem—the European convention itself.

Douglas Carswell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. That matter was not high up in my mind, but I thank him for his valuable contribution.
	I believe that there are alternative ways in which we can defend individual liberty. Those of us who believe in genuine liberty should be concerned to protect the individual against the overbearing state, but we should not regard the Human Rights Act as a measure that empowers individuals against the state—instead, it hands to unaccountable judges powers that should rightfully rest with accountable parliamentarians through the ballot box. Human rights legislation ossifies the public policy-making process. It prevents us from developing innovative answers to new challenges. It makes an unresponsive state even less responsive. It puts more power in the hands of remote and unaccountable elites. In this country we have a long tradition of individual liberty—a tradition that was not guaranteed by some charter adjudicated on by judges.
	There is a growing public perception that human rights legislation, in the shape of the Act and the convention, protects the undeserving—the criminal and the terrorist—at the expense of the law-abiding. That view is largely justified. This criminal rights legislation must be repealed, but we must not merely axe the Act—the European convention on human rights must go as well.

Julian Lewis: Although I agree with a great deal of the robust analysis put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell), I should like first to refer to one of the opening remarks in the excellent speech by myhon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who asked why, if this human rights legislation is as rosy a garden as its advocates on the Government and Liberal Democrat Benches would like us to believe, it is necessary for us to have a debate of this sort at all, and why the tone of Members on those Benches is so defensive.
	The more the debate went on, the more I became aware of something ticking away at the back of my memory reminding me that I had lived through something similar before, and eventually it dawned on me what it was. My mind went back to those junior common room debates in Balliol college, Oxford—not the most conservative-oriented of Oxford colleges in my day—when I used to engage the Marxist majority along these lines: if communism and Marxism is such a wonderful thing, why is it that whenever one looks at it working in practice the people are oppressed and suppressed, and often not only are denied their human rights but lose their lives? The answer was always: "Well, it's because the countries that are trying to put Marxism and communism into practice haven't really understood it, so they misapply it. It's not that the theory is wrong—it's just that it hasn't been tried properly." That is what I am hearing today in what is being put forward by defenders of this legislation.
	It is blindingly obvious that I am not a lawyer of any sort, but I like to think that I know a little bit about common sense. Government and Liberal Democrat supporters of this legislation keep having to say that we must bring common sense to it. When one gets a system or theory that systematically leads to the misunderstanding and misapplication of what it is meant to do, that suggests to me that there is something wrong with the system or theory itself. I believe that to be the case in this situation.
	I am not qualified to say whether it is possible to introduce a new Bill of Rights instead of the Human Rights Act, as my party proposes, without also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich suggested, ripping up our allegiance to the European convention on human rights. However, if we are to introduce a Bill of Rights, I should like to make a few suggestions that Conservative Front Benchers and the leadership of my party might bear in mind. I hope that they will find some resonance in wider society, if not on the Government Benches or among Liberal Democrat Members.
	First, we should recognise that any Bill of Rights must be a fairly short catalogue. One of the problems that has led to the concept of human rights being discredited by the legislation is that most people rightly believe that, for something to be a human right, it should be fundamental. They do not like to hear that people cite their human rights in cases that are obviously trivial and often perverse.
	Secondly, people should recognise that there are few, if any, absolute rights and that most rights are provisional or contingent. We acknowledge that in, for example, times of war, when we impose conscription, which requires our citizens to go to war and put themselves in mortal danger. There are many lower level examples of the fact that the choices that we must make about the way in which we conduct our affairs mean, more often than not, choosing the lesser of two evils. What sticks in the throat about some cases is that, all too often, a human right is declared in an absolutist way, as if, once that is established, it is the end of the matter and its impact on the rights of other people does not count.
	Let me revert to my undergraduate days of reading philosophy and politics. It would be useful for those who frame a new Bill of Rights to bear in mind the simple principle that John Stuart Mill spelled out so effectively in his classic essay, "On Liberty". It is worth reading some of it into the record. It states:
	"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle...That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others... the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others."
	That is clear. We must ask ourselves whether justice, common sense and the principle of liberty that Mill outlined with so much emphasis and rightful attention, focusing on limiting people's ability to harm others, has been taken further forward or knocked back by the introduction of human rights legislation.
	I believe that people who come to this country without a legal right to do so and proceed to commit grave criminal offences are not in a position morally to claim that they have a right to remain here at the end of their prison sentence, irrespective of the misbehaviour that led them to be imprisoned. It is easy for people to say, "This particular group will be targeted for assassination." It is not as clear as that in nine cases out of 10. It is usually a question of a risk assessment of some sort.
	I believe that I am right—hon. Members must forgive me if I am conflating different cases—to say that one of those currently on the run on suspicion of murdering a female police constable not only got out of the country dressed in a burqa, wisely calculating, I suspect, that he would not be searched to establish whether his disguise was bogus, but has fled to the very country to which, he had previously successfully maintained, it was too dangerous for him to return. That would be funny if there were not a dead policeman lying in a coffin as a result.
	I believe in the principle that was enunciated—I am sorry that my repertoire is rather limited to my brief period as a philosophy undergraduate—by the lateSir Karl Popper when he talked about the paradox of tolerance. I have quoted it many times before and I intend, if I am spared, to quote it many times again:
	"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them".
	I fear that the problem with this legislation——the perversity of this legislation, the sub- culture that it has generated——is a culture of tolerating the intolerant and of setting their rights to look after their aims and their abuses over and above the rights of innocent people to be protected from harm. The Government and the Liberal Democrats can convince themselves all they like that this is all about the media misrepresenting cases, and half-educated bureaucrats misapplying the law, or even fully educated bureaucrats gold-plating the law—how often have we heard that given as an excuse in respect of daft European legislation—but the great British public can usually tell when something is working well and when something is working badly. This legislation is working badly. The Government know that it is working badly and the reason they keep prating about the need to inject common sense into it is that it is a body of legislation that is inimical to common sense.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to be called, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I indicated to Mr. Speaker that I hoped that I might be, as I was prevented from being here at the beginning because of a long-standing engagement. I apologise to the Minister and to her opposite number on the Conservative Front Bench that I did not hear their contributions, but obviously I will read them tomorrow. I hope that I will not say anything that is in ignorance of what they said, or in any way disrespectful of things that they may have brought to the House.
	Unlike the hon. Member for New Forest, East(Dr. Lewis), I do not come here as a philosopher or even as a former philosophy student, but as a former human rights lawyer and as one who is absolutely, strongly and unreservedly in favour of the legislation and supportive of the progressive development that the Government brought about when they introduced the Human Rights Act, as the best way that they could see of incorporating the convention into domestic law.
	I was indeed a practitioner as a lawyer before. My interest——not formally relevant but so people know——is that, after my call to the Bar, I spent a couple of years as a trainee and then as an employee on human rights matters in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. That was in the 1970s. Twenty years before, we ratified the convention. At the time, as hon. Members have mentioned, people were beginning to bring cases of individual petition. The ratification after the war, the right of individual petition and lastly the incorporation into domestic law have all been very good developments.
	Colleagues have referred to the context. This is one of the legacies of the decision after the war of the great leaders of Europe—Winston Churchill was one and there were equivalent leaders in France, Italy, Germany and elsewhere—to ensure that we never had war again in this continent and that we set a good example. The Council of Europe was one other legacy, as wasthe transformation of the League of Nations into the United Nations and the convention on human rights. We should be proud of that and proud of the part that the British played in the writing of the document which gave us the human rights that we have written down today.
	This has been a developing document. Documents have been much laboured over—for example in the United Nations, as referred to by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), where the universal declaration eventually became the UN international covenant on civil and political rights. There is also the European document. Those documents were not frozen in time. They were agreed at the beginning, but, as hon. Members know, they were then added to by negotiated protocols that supplemented the original document.
	The hon. Member for New Forest, East implied that there was far too much legislation. By my calculation, there are only 15 rights in total; they are set out in the convention and all its protocols. Fifteen rights is not far too many; a very limited number of rights are protected. All are rights that most British people would regard as fundamental rights that they would want to be defended. There is the right to life, the prohibition of torture, and the prohibition of slavery, referred toby the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous); we got rid of that 200 years ago, and it is protected in the convention that we should not have slavery and forced labour again. There is also the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, the right to freedom of expression, the right to education, the right to family life, and the right not to be discriminated against. Those rights are not alien to us; they are fundamentally central to the citizenry of this country—and the fact that they are written down gives us a much better guarantee that they will be upheld than ever we had before, for reasons I shall come on to discuss.

Stewart Jackson: I take on board that the hon. Gentleman is giving us an historical lesson about the background to the legislation, but we are also talking about its practical ramifications. Is he concerned about the perverse and obscene spectacle of police forces distributing in public mug shots of criminals convicted of very serious offences but the public not being permitted to know what crimes they have been convicted of and human rights being used as the excuse for that?

Simon Hughes: I have apologised for not being present for the opening speeches of the debate, but I have been present for all of the rest of it; I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been. If he were well informed, he would know that one reason why the debate has become of greater interest to some colleagues is because of a misinterpretation of many of the rights set out in the convention. They are rights to which we in this country have subscribed for many years and they are applicable to many in this country. There has been some misunderstanding of the rights, but I hope that this debate will be one of many exercises—along with the Lord Chancellor's recent speech and other speeches and judicial interpretations—that correct that. I have seen nothing that justifies a decision that pictures could not be shown in the case that the hon. Gentleman refers to.
	Let me say clearly to the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members that the human rights convention and the legislation is much more about the rights of parents, children, carers, grandparents and husbands and wives who are normal, law-abiding citizens in constituencies around this land, than it is about people who are in prison or who are alleged to have committed serious crimes. It is about the rights of the majority as much as it is about those of the minority. However, if the hon. Gentleman ever thinks that it is not important to protect the rights of the minorities too, I hope that he is never one of those minorities. I hope that he is never arrested unfairly, or that he—or anybody in his family—is never detained wrongly, because if he is he will realise that it is very important that the courts in his county, as in mine, can immediately take an application to grant the liberty of the citizen, which would not otherwise necessarily be granted. I hope that he will think twice about the nationalistic view that these rights are alien to our culture. They are British rights. We drafted them, and thank goodness the European continent as a whole has endorsed them, and thank goodness that they are applicable when we step across the channel and visit other countries in Europe. British citizens can pray in aid those rights in other countries, as other people can here. That we are not dependent on the arbitrary whim of a particular Executive, Government or Parliament is a great civilising development.

Simon Hughes: We did, but they could not be invoked fully and finally and adjudicated until one had exhausted the domestic remedies and gone to Strasbourg.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said that one problem with the new system is that lots of courts interpret the Human Rights Act, whereas before, only one court finally interpreted the human rights convention. That is true, but we in this country desperately need to have a human rights culture imbued in us all the time. One reason why young people in this country do not understand their rights and responsibilities is that, unlike in France or the United States, they do not have a written constitution. They are not brought up to understand the relationship between the state and the individual. That is why we Liberal Democrats and our predecessor Liberal party have for many years wanted not only a Bill of Rights but a written constitution, so that the rights and the responsibilities of the individual can be established and learned by children at their mother's knee as they go to school, just as they are in the United States. Youngsters in the United States understand the rights and responsibilities of the citizen. They understand the importance of the constitution and the value of a supreme court independent of the Executive and the legislature. That is a great advantage, and we should seek it.
	I hope that the Minister heard the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) that the Government look much more favourably at the Council of Europe's plea to be properly resourced, so that it can deal much more quickly with cases that go to Strasbourg at the end of the process. However, there is one other thing that we in Parliament could do to improve the credibility of human rights in this country. When the Government are thinking of legislating, rather than a Minister certifying on the face of the draft Bill that it is human rights-compliant, it should be submitted to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which I pay tribute for the very good service that it does to both Houses. The Committee should certify that it is human rights-compliant on behalf of both Houses and of all parties represented in this Parliament. I would far rather trust a representative group of people not in government to tell me that proposed legislation is complaint with human rights, than a Minister who has an interest in getting legislation through.
	Sometimes people say that the convention does not allow us to protect our national security and, indeed, that argument was made by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell). How wrong he is. All but a handful of the 15 rights set out in the convention may be qualified in times of threats to national security. There are very few absolute rights, as nations may derogate at such times. There is an absolute right not to be subjected to torture and thank God for that. But other rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life in article 8, are qualified as follows:
	"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
	The convention was intelligently drafted to allow us to row back from absolute rights in the interests of national security. I commend the convention to the hon. Gentleman and if he reads it carefully, he will see that I am right. Some of the protections that he seeks are guaranteed in writing already. He is on record as saying that he did not want people to be deported to a country where they would be executed. That is why some rights are absolute and unqualified.
	I am proud that we have this strong convention. I hope that the Government are resolute and stand firm on this issue, and do not wobble again. I also hope that the Conservative party, as it works out its thinking on this, will be clear that if we are to have a domestic Bill of Rights, it should start with the European convention and the 15 rights in it. If we build on that and seek a consensus, we could end up with a document that would be as valuable in the 21st century as the Magna Carta has been in past centuries.

Andrew Dismore: Ultimately, the statement to which my hon. and learned Friend refers was self-serving. Only by checking the basis of the review can we establish whether there is a factual basis for the assertion in the subsequent document that there is a risk-averse culture in the Home Office. Simply saying so does not make it so; one needs to be able to test the evidence and that we have been unable to do.

Vera Baird: I admire the way in which the hon. Gentleman engages so relentlessly and comprehensively with these issues. My view is that human rights legislation deepens democracy and does not diminish it in anyway.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) described pre-legislative scrutiny for human rights—that is, the human rights-proofing of legislation—as undemocratic. No, it is not. A Minister introducing a Bill is required to inform Parliament that in his or her opinion a Bill is not incompatible with convention rights and it is then for Parliament to decide whether he or she is right and whether the Bill should be enacted.
	The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) raised the issue of public authority, and I hope that I have already dealt with our position on that. We tried to intervene twice in cases to clarify the point. He, too, seems to suggest that tracing public cash from a public source right through to the ultimate recipient is the way to depict that the recipient must be a public authority. That seems to go a long way. He asked why we did not publish the strategic review commissioned by Sir Hayden Phillips. The reason is that although it gave us a picture of the situation in 2004, things had moved on considerably by 2006, so it is not such a useful depiction as he suggests.
	The hon. Gentleman repeated his main question in an intervention on me and in his speech, and it was about how the Department for Constitutional Affairs would drive the agenda through. All central Government Departments have been offered the new guidance, and there is printed guidance and guidance on the website. Most Departments have received many copies of the guidance, and I am reliably informed that 43,000 copies have already been distributed, although I do not know who has counted them. Each local authority across England and Wales has had six handbooks, 12 summaries and lots more have been ordered. Every police constabulary, every probation service and every youth offending team in England and Wales have received all the guidance. As I said in my opening speech, it is the Lord Chancellor's intention that he should meet representative bodies to push the agenda forward and he intends that all his Ministers will do similarly. I hope therefore that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that there is a real intention to promote the issue.
	The hon. Gentleman asked why we could not give more funding to the European Court and the Council of Europe, which are strapped for cash. It is correct that the European Court is suffering a huge backlog, but the problems are systemic. For example, it receives a huge number of inadmissible and repetitive claims and the court's problems cannot really be addressed by further injections of cash, at least not on their own. That is not the answer. Protocol 14 to the ECHR is designed to address the systemic problems of the court and to try to clear the backlog. The hon. Gentleman questioned why we would not give the court more cash, but it is our intention that it should function fully. We have strongly supported protocol 14 with that intention.
	The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) champions the freedom of conscience for Christians. He is a former Back-Bench colleague on a Committee and I enjoyed his conversation then as I enjoyed his contribution now as, in a sense, he engaged in a different debate. There is nothing inconsistent between the values of the ECHR and Christianity, and there is nothing in the ECHR that reduces the freedom of conscience for Christians or gives them less value than the freedom of conscience for other people. There is nothing that prevents Christian motivation from doing public good and I know that he will agree that the motivation to do good is desirable whether it comes from Christians, humanists or atheists. When he considers, as he did, what values we could collect around to unify people in this country, the values implicit in the Human Rights Act give us a perfect target around which we could marshal ourselves.
	The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) would take us back to pre-war days to stop us being influenced by what he called "some charter". I can agree with only one point that he made: our human rights culture has been a tad vague. We intend, as I have said, to sharpen it up.
	That brings me to the contribution of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who spoke of needing a schedule of rights that was, in effect, a short list made up of a few absolute rights and in which all the rest were provisional. That is exactly what we have got. The ECHR is a short list of rights, only a few of which, such as those against torture, slavery and retrospective penalties, are absolute. Most of the rest are limited, such as that on the right to family life, or qualified, such as the fact that the right to freedom of speech must be balanced against other people's rights. I am very glad to be able to grant the hon. Gentleman's wish this evening. I must say that I enjoyed his discursion on Popper. I used to have a dog called Poppy, and one or two friends thought I was so pretentious that the dog was actually called Popper.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is undoubtedly a supporter of human rights. He raised the same point about the Council of Europe, and I hope that I have dealt with it satisfactorily. He suggested that the JCHR should take responsibility for declaring whether a draft Bill was compatible with convention rights. I do not agree. If I am putting forward a Bill as a Minister, it is my responsibility to say whether, in my view, it is compatible. That must be done as early as possible so that the JCHR can, as it regularly does, report, comment and inform debate in the House. It is a good idea for the declaration of compatibility to have reasoning attached to it so as to help the Committee with its task.

Andrew Dismore: I agree that it is important to get involved at a much earlier stage and we are, in fact, trying to provide earlier scrutiny of White and Green Papers, for example. One of the real difficulties that we experience in scrutinising Bills is the lack of information from Ministers. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be helpful if we had a human rights memorandum, summarising the advice—not necessarily the full argument, but the advice and the reasoning behind it—of the Attorney-General on whether or not a Bill is compliant? That would narrow down the amount of work that we had to do, lessen the work and correspondence that needs to be carried out between my Committee and Ministers and also, of course, rather better inform the House.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point.
	That leads me to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who speaks for Her Majesty's Opposition on this issue and who is concerned that the Human Rights Act 1998 has been undermining the criminal law. In particular, he talked about the Assets Recovery Agency and complained that it was challenged in court when it attempted to seize the assets of criminals. I am afraid that when the hon. Gentleman argues in that way, he is really arguing against due process and I have to tell him that it is far better—particularly if these challenges are, as he heavily implied, absolutely without merit—if the challenge is made here, where it can be done relatively quickly and relatively cheaply and there can be an outcome. That is preferable to going to Strasbourg, which is what would have to happen if, as he wishes, we did not have the Human Rights Act.
	Indeed, with great respect to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, he seemed completely unable to grasp that what will always remain is the European convention on human rights. He, unlike some of his colleagues, has no intention of leaving it behind, but it is impossible to introduce a Bill of Rights that will oust it. The hon. Gentleman talked about the margin of appreciation as if it would somehow emerge if there were a British Bill of Rights. Marginal appreciation, of course, already exists now and it means a tolerance in respect of local circumstances if they are likely to be better known to the national decision maker on the detail of each individual case. It would not permit the European Court to tolerate alternative Bills of Rights, which are bound to be in conflict with or different from the convention. There would no point in having a different Bill of Rights if it were not different from the convention.
	The hon. Gentleman's point, I assume, is for it be different in some magical way; but despite my direct question, he could not tell me what would be in it. Obviously, it is going to be different from what we have now, so it is obviously going to be different from the convention rights. What would happen, of course, is the opposite of what he said. We would not recover total supremacy for law to the House of Commons; on the contrary, the only point of having a British Bill of Rights would be if it were entrenched here; otherwise, it would have no effect. That means that we would lose parliamentary sovereignty and the supremacy of the elected House of Commons. On questions of rights, the ultimate arbiters would be the judiciary and future Parliaments might be unable to act to protect national security. The present Human Rights Act avoids that. It allows Acts of Parliament to become law even if they are not compatible with the European convention.
	The second difficulty is the uncertainty and confusion that would result from having two sets of fundamental rights. On the one hand, the Government would remain obliged to comply with the European convention rights and the citizen would be able to take a case to Strasbourg; on the other hand, Government, citizens and courts would be confronted by a separate, but presumably overlapping, set of rights for the purposes of domestic law. Much criticism of bureaucrats has been made, but I cannot think of a better recipe for confusion than having several layers of different rights. Decision makers would have to bear in mind two sets of rights, so they would inevitably become more risk-averse. Our task is to empower through this legislation; how on earth would the decision makers cope with such a lot of overlapping rights?
	To be quite frank, there has been a lot of guff talked tonight from the Opposition Benches. It makes it absolutely critical that our campaign should be a success, that it should start soon and that it shouldbe driven forward. We must disclose to Opposition Members the common sense that is an inherent part of this legislation, which they are clearly totally missing.
	I am proud to be a member of the Government, even though only a lance corporal, who brought home these rights. I am determined, with my fellow Ministers, to encourage these rights into our culture. I look forward very strongly to the advent of the commission on equalities and human rights. It is a rather chancy, patchy way to entrench rights to have a Department pushing them, when they are essentially forwarded through the courts. It will be much better when we have a commission that can drive them forward, so that they become part of our core, mainstream values and part of the way that public authorities deal with all our citizens all of the time.
	The alternative is the Cameron Bill of Rights, which was referred to by a most distinguished journalist, whom I do not always agree with, but I do on this occasion —

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman should wait for it. The Bill of Rights was referred to as
	"so woolly it would make a flock of Merino ewes bleat with envy."
	I agree. I commend the current Human Rights Act 1998 and this campaign, which will bring it further home.

Kelvin Hopkins: May I first say how pleased I am to have this opportunity to explain to the House, and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, proposals for a European rail freight route stretching from Glasgow to the channel tunnel? I should say from the outset that I have no pecuniary interest in rail freight developments, but I am passionately committed to the proposal for a rail freight route down the backbone of Britain—a new railway line that is vital for Britain's future transport infrastructure needs and economic success.
	This is not the first time that I have spoken up for rail freight, having secured an Adjournment debate some eight years ago, when I expressed support for the then Central Railway scheme, which was similar in many ways to our Eurorail freight route, but a more limited scheme on a somewhat different route was then proposed. After 1997, I put proposals informally to successive Transport Ministers—at an earlier stage for variations of the Central Railway proposal, and in more recent years for the Eurorail freight route scheme.
	The Eurorail freight route proposals have been developed by a small and strongly committed team, including railway engineers, a major road haulier, a railway consultant and myself. My hon. Friend will know that two weeks ago we met officials in his Department and had a most useful and constructive discussion, which we hope was helpful in explaining our scheme in detail.
	We have consulted widely and are continuing to do so, seeking to make sure that our scheme is absolutely right in every respect. We have spoken with the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Freight Transport Association, the Rail Freight Group and many others. I wrote to Sir Rod Eddington during his recent study for the Treasury, receiving a friendly reply, and have kept Network Rail informed of our proposals. We also made a submission to our noble colleagues in another place in 2005.
	We continue to have cordial relations with Central Railway and regularly meet its representatives. We are, however, different in concept: Central Railway is a company with business objectives, whereas our own Eurorail freight route group is concerned simply to persuade the Government of the value of our scheme and to consider making a positive reference to it in the White Paper due later this year.
	I shall now turn to the details of our scheme and say why we think it is so vital to Britain's future. Most significantly, we have specified a very precise track route and given detailed consideration to its construction and necessary works. We have presented to my hon. Friend's departmental officials maps showing the exact route that we propose.
	The crucial feature of our scheme, however, is to construct it to a large gauge sufficient to transport full-scale road trailers on trains and full-sized 9 ft 6 in containers. Indeed, we go further and propose that the core route would eventually be capable of transporting double-stacked 9 ft 6 in freight containers. The scheme would offer access to road hauliers at terminals close to motorways and the major economic regions of Britain. Freight operators could simply deliver their road trailers to the nearest terminals for onward transportation by rail and collection for delivery to their final destination by road at the other end.
	 It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Tony Cunningham.]

Kelvin Hopkins: The concept has been described as a rolling motorway, and that is what it would be—and an international motorway too. It would take more than5 million lorry journeys off our roads every year as well as providing a dedicated rail freight route for much of the north-south rail freight traffic currently using the east coast and west coast main lines. Our route would not only take large volumes of freight traffic off Britain's roads, but would free up the east coast and west coast main lines for faster and more frequent passenger use.
	As a spin-off from our scheme, we also suggest that the east coast main line in particular could and should be upgraded, with the quadrupling of the track at Welwyn and a new viaduct, as well as other improvements further north to permit 140 mph non-stop passenger trains from London to Edinburgh. Similar services to 135 mph could be made possible on the west coast main line to Glasgow, provided that much of the north-south freight traffic is transferred to the new freight line. The Eurorail freight route would, we suggest, be an integral part of Network Rail's future network.
	As for the construction of our route, its main attraction is that it would be built on existing corridors—either underutilised existing lines or old track bed—for all but 14 miles of its 470-mile length. Indeed, only 4 miles of new track across open farmland would be required, the other new track being in tunnels. The terminals would also be constructed either at existing sites or on new sites well away from human habitation, thus minimising any negative environmental impact. The construction would therefore be simple and easy, minimising both planning constraints and also, crucially, the cost.
	I shall now describe the precise route. We propose that the scheme would be built in phases, starting at the north Thames with a terminal linked to the channel tunnel rail link so that lorries-on-trains services, as well as container traffic to and from the continent of Europe, could begin very soon. The next phase would be a link round the east and north of London to a second terminal close to the M40, M25 and M4 motorways, and with easy access to the M1 and M3. That route would make use of the Barking to Gospel Oak line and then a new tunnel under Hampstead linking to the Midland freight lines at West Hampstead.
	The line would then pass through Cricklewood and on to the Chiltern lines, which would involve reinstating track in vacant track bed. Travelling northwards, the line would then make use of the old Great Central route, again with track reinstatement on old track bed. Further terminals would be located in the east midlands and the west midlands with a link through to Birmingham, and the main route would then travel northwards almost entirely on existing routes to Sheffield and the Tinsley terminal, before crossing the Pennines through the unused Woodhead tunnel to another terminal near motorways in south Lancashire. The route would then track northwards through Lancashire, linking up with the Settle to Carlisle route and so on to Scotland and Glasgow. A link would be built to Newcastle and the north-east, and the Birmingham link could later be extended to the south-west and south Wales. Another possible link could be developed between our north-west London terminal and Southampton.
	Although in the first instance the route would make use of channel tunnel rail link track from the north Thames Gateway, we propose that a new Thames crossing would be built linking our route to the Medway valley line and so to the channel tunnel, again making use of existing track routes. My hon. Friend will be aware—as we all are—of the ongoing financial crises of the channel tunnel. These derive essentially from the fact that the channel tunnel is under-used and the existing traffic is incapable of providing a return on the historic capital cost of the tunnel's construction. There are tens of thousands of vacant train paths through the tunnel every year and there will never be enough passengers to take up even a tiny fraction of these. Our scheme would deliver those tens of thousands of trains—freight trains—to the channel tunnel every year, transforming the tunnel's economics and making it financially viable for the future. The reality is that the tunnel is effectively subsidized by the French and British Governments and we contend that our scheme would simply obviate the need for future subsidies.
	Other major savings would be in road repairs and congestion on Britain's motorways. My hon. Friend will know that these have been estimated as costing billions every year—much of that burdening the Exchequer, and with other costs falling more generally on the economy as a whole. He may also be aware of the fact that it is lorry traffic that causes road damage. Road damage is linked to axle weight by the so-called fourth power law, whereby the damage caused is proportional to the fourth power of any increase in axle weight. Lorry axle weights are several times those of passenger cars and are the primary cause of road damage and the need for expensive repairs, coned-off lanes and the inevitable consequent congestion. Five million fewer lorry journeys would significantly reduce the need for road repairs and the concomitant Exchequer costs.
	The Eurorail freight route scheme would promote a significant modal shift of freight from road to rail, free up existing main lines for faster passenger services and provide a much-needed new freight transport artery linking Britain to the major European economies for the future. A massive new network of dedicated rail freight routes is being constructed on the continent of Europe, and Britain must be linked to that network if we are not to suffer from economic peripherality and relative economic decline in the longer term.
	It was our noble Friend Lord Kinnock, in his role as European Transport Commissioner, who promoted the concept of a European rail freight network, and our European neighbours are racing ahead in developing such a network. A major rail tunnel is being built through the Alps to Italy and a 35-mile rail tunnel is being built under the Brenner pass to link Italy to Austria and Germany. Both have flat gradients, which enables them to take large-gauge, heavy and long freight trains. Britain must not be left behind by those European developments.
	We all welcome, of course, the significant increase in rail freight in recent years, but it has to be said that that is simply keeping pace with the overall growth of freight traffic. Rail freight is also constrained by the existing rail network, which is both short of capacity and incapable of taking full-scale road trailers on trains. Worryingly, even in the past fortnight, we have seen a further 45 per cent. drop in the amount of freight going through the channel tunnel as a result of services being withdrawn by Unilog, which has ceased trading. All those problems could, and should, be overcome by constructing new dedicated rail freight infrastructure, and our Eurorail freight route scheme, we believe, is the way forward. The Department for Transport's figures show that rail freight produces one twelfth of the carbon emissions of comparable road freight, so our scheme would contribute substantially to reducing those emissions.
	Finally, and perhaps most crucially of all, the Eurorail freight route, as we propose it, would be very inexpensive to build. We have recently recosted our scheme using comparisons with existing railway construction costs elsewhere in the UK. Our scheme would cost only about £3.5 billion—a fraction of the costs of the channel tunnel rail link, Crossrail and the west coast main line modernisation. Our costs would be low because we would make use of existing corridors and terminal sites whenever possible and minimise new and difficult construction.
	I hope that my hon. Friend will give serious thought to our scheme when he is preparing his upcoming White Paper. We believe that it would be immensely advantageous to the logistics industry, enormously beneficial to the wider economy and very popular indeed with the electorate throughout the whole of Britain. I commend our scheme to him for his careful consideration.

Tom Harris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) on securing the debate—for the second time in a short number of weeks, I believe—and giving the House an opportunity to discuss this important matter. Shortly after I was appointed to my post, I attended a business breakfast for the British rail freight industry. The only familiar face at the table that morning was that of my hon. Friend—it was good to see him there. Since then, I have become well aware that his interest in, and commitment to, the British freight industry is extremely impressive. He is very knowledgeable about the matter and I am always grateful for any advice that he can offer me. In this short debate, I hope that we will be able to make some progress on the scheme that he has proposed. I will start by making several general policy comments before going on to the specifics of my hon. Friend's project.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the Eddington review of the long-term impact of transport decisions on the UK's productivity, stability and growth. The review highlighted the role of freight and the fact that reliable freight journeys are key to enabling the economy to function effectively as an increasing volume of imports supports the shift towards a service economy. As prosperity and the demand for goods grow, efficient freight transport is increasingly vital to the UK economy. Rail freight is a competitive private sector industry. Since privatisation in 1995, the amount of freight moved has increased by 66 per cent., measured in tonne kilometres. Rail freight's market share also increased over the same period from 8.5 per cent. to 11.7 per cent.
	The Government welcome such growth and want it to continue. Our rail freight policy statement to Parliament in July 2005 outlined our clear policy aim of goods being moved in a sustainable way that maximises benefits to the economy and society. For instance, because rail and water freight generally have less impact on society than road transport, they can bring about substantial benefits. In 2005-06, the rail freight industry moved the equivalent of 1.22 billion lorry kilometres, which saved 6.74 million lorry journeys and delivering significant reductions in pollution and congestion. We believe that rail therefore has a crucial role to play in goods transport alongside other modes, and we want to see freight travelling by rail instead of road wherever that makes the most sense.
	We recognise that, compared to road freight, rail and water freight can reduce accidents and congestion on our roads, and can cut pollution and carbon emissions. To support the moving of freight traffic by rail and water instead of by road we operate two grant schemes that are administered through the sustainable distribution fund. I hope that the House will bear with me as I go into the detail of those.
	The two schemes are the freight facility grants scheme and the rail environmental benefit procurement scheme, known as REPS. REPS starts in April this year and replaces and builds upon the successful track access grants and company-neutral revenue support schemes that have been in place for some years—but I expect that you knew that, Mr. Speaker. To support the rail freight market we have announced that a resource budget of £18.5 million a year has been allocated for the sustainable distribution fund until 2009-10. That is designed to give industry certainty that the grants will be available for the duration of their normal contracts with customers.
	I am pleased to see how the rail freight industry has worked together to formulate the forecasts that have been used in the freight route utilisation strategy, or FRUS, and Network Rail's other route utilisation strategies, as well as other parts of the rail industry planning process including, of course, the high-level output specification. Those forecasts cover the period until 2015 and indicate that rail freight growth will both continue and be concentrated on specific sectors, such as electricity supply industry coal, and deep sea, or intercontinental, intermodal traffic to and fromthe UK's deep sea ports and in the construction market.
	In the next few years, the Government will complete a number of major projects aimed at enhancing the capacity and capability on the current network. They include the west coast project, where enhancements like the Trent valley four-tracking scheme will increase capacity for passenger and freight services, and additional capability is being provided to accommodate further growth. That is just one of several schemes being taken forward by the Government and the industry to improve capacity. Despite record levels of investment, however, we recognise that capacity in some areas remains an issue. That is where the aims of the project that my hon. Friend has described come in.
	The promoters of the Eurorail freight route discussed their proposals with officials when they met earlier in this month, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Clearly the promoters have carried out a considerable amount of work to identify a possible route and to develop some outline construction costs for the scheme, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the amount of work that he has put into the promotion of the scheme. That said, however, the project is clearly a large one that is at a comparatively early stage of development, and we would wish to understand the operational effects of the scheme on the wider rail network, the financial viability of the proposals and the potential environmental effects of such a scheme before making a decision on whether to support it.
	The type of proposal being promoted by the Eurorail team is designed to provide long-term capacity for rail freight. We remain convinced that, in the short term, significant benefits can be gained through making maximum use of the capacity that is already available within the existing railway network. Network Rail is developing a series of route utilisation strategies which will help to achieve this objective. The strategies aim to ensure that capacity is used as efficiently as possible and that demand and supply are as closely matched as they can be, while ensuring better performance and reliability.
	The RUS process also highlights areas where small-scale investments will enhance capacity and capability, some of which may be funded by the Network Rail discretionary fund, and some of which may be incorporated into the high-level output specification. Although the majority of the RUSs cover both passenger and freight in specific geographical areas, the specific network-wide needs of freight have also been recognised in the work undertaken for the freight RUS, the final version of which Network Rail plans to publish in March this year following consultation on the draft.
	Each Network Rail route utilisation strategy covers a period of approximately 10 years. For the longer term, the Government continue to advance a number of projects to enhance capacity, including the Thameslink project for which we have recently received planning permission and allocated £30 million for further development of the project in advance of the outcome of this year's comprehensive spending review.
	This year, our strategy and high-level output specification programme will set out our long-term expectations for the whole industry. In the HLOS, which is our first such document, the Government will specify clearly what they expect from the railway during the next control period. However, we will not specify outputs for the freight industry, as the Government are not a customer of the private freight industry. One of the main considerations for HLOS will be the capacity of the network, and how to respond to the likely increases in demand. Although the specification will, of course, have a passenger focus, it will also draw on the work done by the industry in the freight route utilisation strategy directly to inform our demand models. That will allow us to plan for passenger growth while keeping an informed eye on the needs of freight.
	Given that railway projects can take a number of years to come to fruition, the Department will also consider the strategic direction for the railways over a longer period, so that while shaping the first HLOS, we are aware of the likely pressures and requirements for subsequent years. That will ensure that we do not carry out abortive works, and that when renewals occur, they have been designed with the likely longer-term requirements in mind. That will save us time and money when schemes are implemented in later years.
	To conclude, we welcome rail freight growth and we want it to continue, but we recognise that capacity remains an issue in some areas, and projects of the type proposed by the Eurorail promoters and by my hon. Friend may increase that capacity. We are happy to consider such proposals as and when they are submitted through the planning process. In the meantime, we will continue to develop projects that will enhance capacity for both passengers and freight.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes pastTen o'clock.